Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

SAINT STEPHEN COLEMAN STREET BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Schools and School Places

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education the average length of time now being taken to complete a school in England and Wales; and what was the corresponding figure in 1949.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The average construction period for schools started in 1952–53 is about two-thirds of what it was for schools providing the same number of places started in 1949.

Mr. Johnson: How do the costs of the schools built at these dates compare?

Mr. Vosper: That is a slightly different question. At constant prices the cost is about two-thirds of what it was in 1949.

Dr. King: Can the hon. Gentleman give the corresponding figures for 1950–51?

Mr. Vosper: I could, but not without notice I am afraid.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how many schools and school places are at present under construction in England and Wales; and how many of these are in Manchester.

Mr. Vosper: On 31st March, 1955, there were 959 schools and 395,000 places under construction in England and Wales.

Comparable figures for Manchester on 1st February, 1955 (the latest date available) were 8 schools and 4,025 places.

Mr. Sparks: Can the hon. Gentleman say how those figures compare with the figures his right hon. Friend gave in the House a day or two ago, which showed that the actual number of new school places in use in 1954 was 99,729 and in 1955 29,445? How do those compare with the figures which he is now giving?

Mr. Vosper: There is, of course, a great difference between schools approved, schools under construction and schools completed, and there is in fact little variation between the figures given. Whichever figures are given, they show an increase in building over earlier years.

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Education how many new school places have been provided in Great Britain during the periods 1945 to 1951 and 1952 to the present time, respectively; and how many will be provided by the schools now under construction or authorised to be constructed.

Mr. Vosper: Between the end of the war and 31st January, 1952, 679,985 school places were provided by new building in England and Wales. The corresponding figure for the period 1st February, 1952 to 31st January, 1955, is 668,415. On 1st February last there were a further 316,830 school places under construction, while 351,300 were due to be started between that date and 31st March, 1956.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the Minister inform us how many of the school places which have been completed since February, 1952, were started before this Government came into office?

Mr. Vosper: As a school takes between two and three years to build, the majority of the schools were started prior to 1951, but the hon. Member will realise that there is an equally large number under construction at the present time.

Mr. E. Johnson: Are not the figures just given a very striking example of the propensity of the party opposite to start something which they cannot finish?

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education how the numbers of schools completed and of school places provided


in Manchester since 1st November, 1951, compare with the figures for the period between 1st August, 1945, and 31st October, 1951.

Mr. Vosper: For schools completed, the answer is 10 for the first period and 26 for the second: for school places 11,010 and 10,620.

Mr. Johnson: Do not these figures provide a striking and yet typical example of the great improvement in the state of this country since 1951?

Mr. Robens: May I ask whether these questions are designed to supplement "All the Answers," issued by the Conservative Central Office?

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the first Government referred to in connection with this Question found no schools under construction when they took office, but that the present Government inherited schools under construction from the Labour Government?

Mr. Vosper: Of course I am aware of that, but the figures nevertheless are very striking.

Village Hall, Stoborough

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Education whether he will now make a grant towards the building of a village hall at Stoborough, Dorset.

Mr. Vosper: My right hon. Friend hopes to make an offer of grant as soon as the village hall committee sends him certain additional information for which he has asked.

HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES (LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when he proposes to set up a legislative council in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if, in view of the indefinite adjournment of the Basutoland National Council because of its opposition to the recommendations of the Moore Commission and of the proposals made

by Tshekedi Khama in Bechuanaland, he will establish legislative councils in the three High Commission Protectorates.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): In the view of the Government, and in this we are in accord with the views expressed by the former Labour Government, the present need in all three High Commission Territories is for the development of local government institutions. Until further experience has been gained at the district and village level, it is premature to consider what advance at the centre will be practicable. There are advisory councils in all three Territories, which are consulted on all matters of importance affecting them.

Mr. Mallalieu: Have not the Government considered the views of Tshekedi Khama on this matter, and would they not agree that his views are very much to be taken into consideration on any matters concerning Bechuanaland? Are the Bechuana peoples really to be added to the long and dreary list of peoples whose natural aspirations have been frustrated by the Tory Party?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: As I say, the views which this Government take on the matter are in accord with those of our predecessors, and we take into account the views of all the responsible authorities in the Territory.

Mr. Brockway: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the tempo of progress has increased greatly among African peoples during the last three years, and that what may have been satisfactory three years ago is absolutely inadequate today?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, and the building up of the basis of democratic government, which is local self-government, education and ecenomic development, has developed in the last three and a half years of Conservative Government more than under the previous Labour Government.

BECHUANALAND (SERETSE KHAMA)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if, in view of the


termination of the original period of five years for the exclusion of Seretse Khama from Bechuanaland and the continued desire of the Bamangwato tribe that he shall return, he will now reconsider the decision that the banishment be made permanent.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 16th December, 1954.

Mr. Brockway: How long is this scandal to continue? Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the exclusion of Seretse Khama from Bechuanaland only on the ground that he married a white woman is an outrage to the moral conscience of this country?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The hon. Gentleman should direct that criticism to his right hon. and hon. Friends who undertook this policy.

Mr. Awbery: But are not the present Government in a position to put the matter right and to allow Seretse Khama to return to his tribe?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: We have supported this decision and we have stated that this decision is final.

Mr. Brockway: Shame.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Bankruptcies

Mr. Sparks: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of bankruptcies in 1951 and each subsequent year to the nearest convenient date.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): 1,816, 2,043, 2,222 and 2,176.

Mr. Sparks: Do not those very high figures of bankruptcies indicate that a large number of small people were misled by the propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman's party at the last Election?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Between 1948 and 1951 there was an increase of 60 per cent. in bankruptcies, but I am bound to say that much worse things than that could be said against the record of the previous Administration.

Factory Building

16 and 17. Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the percentage increase in new factory building in Scotland and England, respectively, during 1954;
(2) what percentage of new factory building, begun in the United Kingdom during each of the years 1952 to 1954, was located in Scotland.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Thomson: Could the President of the Board of Trade say whether the Scottish percentage of new factory buildings is rising or falling under the present Government? Can he say whether Conservative freedom means jobs in Scotland or jobs in London, where unemployment is so much lower?

Mr. Thorneycroft: More and more factories are being built in Scotland.

Following is the Answer:

Compared with the previous year, the area of industrial building granted location approval showed an increase of 94 per cent. in Scotland and of 87 per cent. in England. The corresponding figures for industrial building started were 25 per cent. and 47 per cent. and for industrial building completed, a decrease of 7·6 per cent. and an increase of 25 per cent. According to the latest information, the Scottish share of industrial building begun in Great Britain was 6·9 per cent. in 1952, 7·4 per cent. in 1953 and 6·4 per cent. in 1954.

Subsidised Wheat (Imports)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take steps to protect home growers of wheat from the importation of French wheat supported by an export bounty at any period when home grown grain still awaits marketing.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 3rd May to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd).

Sir F. Medlicott: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is not so much the fact of these imports that raises difficulties as the occasionally very inconvenient timing?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. I am aware of the point.

Imported Goods (Merchandise Marks)

Mr. Russell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now give a decision about the withdrawal of the option under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, which allows imported goods, which are required to be marked, to bear the words "Foreign" or "Empire," instead of the name of the country of origin.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am considering the views of Commonwealth and Colonial Governments on this matter.

Mr. Russell: How long will it take to decide this question? I appreciate all the difficulties involved, but it has been under consideration for some considerable time.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes. I have not received all the views of the Commonwealth yet, but as soon as I do I shall give them consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Budget Proposals)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total average sums per head of relief granted in the Budgets during the years 1952 to 1955 to taxpayers whose incomes exceed £5,000 a year, to taxpayers with incomes between £2,000 and £5,000, to taxpayers whose incomes are between £250 and £500 and to taxpayers whose incomes are below £250.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): £465, £165, £14 10s. and £5 10s. respectively, many of those in the last two classes being relieved of the whole of the tax they were previously paying.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Financial Secretary not agree that these figures have a complexion very different from that of the percentage presentation he made during the debates on the Finance Bill? Do not these figures give a much more realistic picture of the kind of tax reliefs the present Government have been giving?

Mr. Brooke: They do, of course, give an entirely unrealistic picture except in conjunction with the amounts of tax which are still being paid. The wealthiest of these classes is still paying an average of £5,388 in tax, the second £978, the third £14 10s., and the fourth only £1 7s. 6d.

Mr. Lewis: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much increase of their net spending power there is in the pockets of each of these classes of individuals? Is he aware that in answering a previous Question he showed that the very wealthy have had a much bigger increase in their spending power than those with lower incomes?

Mr. Brooke: These tax reductions for the wealthiest amount to 8 per cent. of their previous tax. If the hon. Member is asking the question that I think he is, I would observe that that question has already been answered.

Profits

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the total of profits in the year ending 31st March, 1955, exceeded that in the corresponding previous year.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): No official estimates of profits are available except for calendar years. As stated in the Economic Survey 1955, paragraph 55, gross trading profits of companies together with the trading surpluses of public corporations were 7½ per cent. or £202 million higher in 1954 than in 1953.

Mr. Jay: Is this steady increase of profits what the Conservative Party Manifesto meant when it said.
The future beckons with a golden finger"?

Sir E. Boyle: I think this steady increase in profits is a very good thing. So did the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) when he introduced his Budget in 1951.

MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (PAY AND CONDITIONS)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total staff employed by the Medical Research Council; and under what awards then-wages, salaries and conditions of service are fixed.

Mr. H. Brooke: The total staff employed by the Medical Research Council on 1st April, 1955, was 1,645. Rates of pay and general conditions are


determined by the Council, in consultation with the Treasury. For scientific staff they are based on comparable scales and conditions for university staffs; for administrative and clerical staff on civil service scales and conditions; for technical staff on the rates and conditions in the Health Services; and for other staff either on those in the Health Services or on those obtaining under local or trade union conditions.

Mr. Bottomley: Would the Financial Secretary agree that it would be much better if the trade unions and the employers' organisations represented upon the Medical Research Council were to agree conditions of service and salaries? I think that that would be much more satisfactory and would lead to greater contentment.

Mr. Brooke: I have answered the Question the right hon. Gentleman put to me. If he would like to pursue it further, perhaps he will succeed in getting himself re-elected to Parliament.

Mr. Hastings: Is there a Whitley Council for any of those employed by the Medical Research Council? If not, why not?

Mr. Brooke: I should require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pigeon Shoots (Cartridges)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cartridges have been issued for wood pigeon shoots; and what are the conditions for obtaining them.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): Since 1st September, 1953, when the half-price cartridge scheme was introduced, nearly 11 million cartridges have been issued for wood pigeon shoots. The cartridges are provided only to people taking part in organised shoots or to individual experts shooting over decoys.

Mr. Crouch: Have any counties particular conditions attached to the issue of cartridges? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is no abuse of this very useful scheme for keeping down the number of pigeons?

Mr. Nugent: I understand that Dorset has a scheme by which it requires pigeons' feet to be handed in as evidence of the pigeons shot. Other counties do not, I think, employ such methods, but they do keep close oversight to see that the scheme is not abused.

Mr. Ede: How many pigeons have been killed by the firing of those 11 million cartridges?

Mr. Nugent: It is obviously impossible to give precise figures, but I can give an estimate. Since 1st September, 1953, it is estimated that the total kills were just over 4 million, 2¾ million by organised shoots and 1¼ million by specialist shots. The returns, however, up to 31st March, 1955, are not yet complete.

Mr. Crouch: In view of the fact that in Dorset pigeon's feet are asked for as evidence, can my hon. Friend say how many piegons have been destroyed in Dorset?

Mr. Nugent: My hon. Friend had better put that question on the Order Paper.

Deer, Exe Valley (Crop Damage)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct his pest officers in Devon and Somerset to take immediate action to prevent further damage to crops in the Exe Valley area and heavy financial loss to farmers as a result of raids by deer.

Mr. Nugent: My Department will see what can be done when the deer are no longer in calf.

Mr. Sparks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Devon and Somerset Staghounds, upon whom reliance has been put for holding the deer herd in check, has no money to carry out that purpose until the autumn and, in the meantime, extensive damage is being done to crops, as pest officers admit? As there are alternative methods of dealing with this matter, will the hon. Gentleman press the Minister to give pest officers greater freedom to deal with the difficulty in that area?

Mr. Nugent: I think the hon. Member knows from correspondence he had with his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) seven years ago that this is not a simple matter.
Normally, in the interests of humanity, deer are not destroyed or dealt with when they are calving. The alternative method is by the use of shotguns, when there is real danger of cruelty. Therefore, it is thought best to leave this matter until the autumn, when further efforts will be made.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Industrial Disputes

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Labour how many stoppages of work through industrial disputes in the United Kingdom during the last three and a half years came to an end after, firstly, a hearing by an arbitration tribunal appointed by him, secondly, a report of a court of inquiry appointed by him and, thirdly, the use of existing negotiating machinery without recourse to the first two methods.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): Arbitration proceedings aim to provide a peaceful means for the settlement of differences rather than to bring stoppages of work to an end. From the beginning of 1952 till the end of April, 1955, 1,019 awards were issued by arbitration bodies appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend. In the same period 10 reports of courts of inquiry and six reports of committees of investigation were made in connection with actual or threatened disputes, and helped to promote a settlement. Statistics of stoppages terminated through voluntary negotiating machinery are not available, but a very large number are averted or brought to an end by negotiations between the parties with or without the assistance of conciliation officers of my Department.

Mr. Page: Would my hon. Friend make clear at what stage his right hon. and learned Friend is constitutionally entitled to intervene in industrial disputes? Would he say whether there have been many occasions when the unions and the Trades Union Congress have asked for intervention before that stage has been reached? If so, would he care to pay a tribute to the unions and the T.U.C. for their co-operation in that respect?

Mr. Watkinson: In answer to the first part of the supplementary question, perhaps fortunately the Ministry of Labour does not have a lot of written rules about industrial negotiations. If we had, our task might be even more difficult than it is. I should like to take the opportunity of saying—what I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend would wish me to say—that in those disputes in which another union is involved we are grateful to the T.U.C. when it can help. It is in a special position to help in that kind of dispute.

Mr. Awbery: Is not this an indication that the present industrial machinery for settling disputes is not quite adequate to the situation? Will the hon. Gentleman consult the T.U.C. and invite it to revise the machinery and make proposals to him so that we can prevent disputes in future?

Mr. Watkinson: It might be a very good idea.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Are the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend satisfied that there is not rather too much delay in regard to arbitration tribunals in bringing these disputes and claims before them? It seems to me that if we could expedite the working of the tribunals recourse to other forms of arbitration would not be quite so necessary.

Mr. Watkinson: That is a very practical suggestion, which we have looked at. We will expedite the matter, where possible, but it is not always possible.

Private Employment Agencies (Legislation)

Mr. Ede: asked the Minister of Labour why the legislation promised in Command Paper No. 8286 of July, 1951, a necessary preliminary to the ratification of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 96, has not been introduced by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Watkinson: In 1951 the previous Government undertook to introduce legislation to provide for the supervision of private employment agencies. More urgent matters have had to take precedence, but the question has not been lost sight of and consultations which have been taking place between Departments are on the point of conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Police (Working Hours)

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking on the recommendation of the Police Council in favour of a 44-hour week.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): My right hon. and gallant Friend is considering this recommendation, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It involves a number of detailed amendments to the Police Regulations which would have to be laid before the statutory police councils. He hopes to be in a position to make a statement in the near future.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State bear in mind that the police have been waiting very patiently and for a long time for some such concession? Will he expedite as much as possible the steps required to give effect to this very reasonable request?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am, of course, aware of the interest taken by the police in this matter, but I would prefer in present circumstances not to add anything to what I have said.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is a compromise on the original request of the Police Federation?

Colonial Immigrants

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now make a statement on the control of the immigration of British subjects into the United Kingdom.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I regret that I am unable to add to previous answers on this subject.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as long ago as 16th December the Home Secretary said he was considering the matter, that rumours of restrictions or bans have only served to increase the rate of emigration from the West Indies to this country, and that

1,500 people came this week? In those circumstances, will he come to an early decision on what is constituting a very serious problem, not only for the immigrants, but for local authorities in this country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and gallant Friend is, of course, aware that this is an important and urgent question, but he has no powers to deal with it. It would be necessary to amend the law, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would suggest that that is a matter which might be undertaken very lightly or quickly.

Mr. Vane: Is there any other part of the British Commonwealth to which all British subjects can emigrate on the same terms as they can to this country?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like to have notice of that question.

Mr. K. Robinson: Whilst not accepting the necessity for control in this case, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why he and the Colonial Secretary have not set up a committee to inquire into the living conditions which are displacing these immigrants, as there is only the sketchiest information in either of the Departments?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that goes beyond the limits of this Question. Of course the question of an inquiry of that sort has received consideration.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is it not desirable that some machinery should be set up for ascertaining the numbers of these people, so that at least we can find the size of the problem?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is part of the question which was asked by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).

Mr. Robens: Would it not be much better if the hon. Gentleman consulted the Colonial Secretary to ensure that conditions in the Colonies were such that vast numbers of immigrants would not want to come to England for employment?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: That is not really a fair statement of the position. As the right hon. Member knows, conditions have somewhat improved in the Colonies mainly concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bangkok—Tokio Route (Aircraft Dinghies)

Sir R. Perkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will amend his regulations so as to make the carrying of dinghies obligatory on all British aircraft flying between Bangkok and Tokio,

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Normal British regulations, which are stricter than International Civil Aviation Organisation Standards, do not require the carrying of dinghies on this route; but I am informed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation that their aircraft will for the time being carry dinghies on a voluntary basis.

Sir R. Perkins: Thank you very much.

Railways Modernisation Scheme

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to receive the first of the annual forecasts promised by the British Transport Commission in connection with the Railways Modernisation Scheme.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The British Transport Commission informs me that it hopes to publish the first statement of forecasts this afternoon.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Londoners, including many of my constituents, are extremely anxious to see a start made on the electrification of the main lines? Can he give any indication whether a start is to be made in the near future?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: So far as forecasts for the first year are concerned, perhaps the hon. Member will wait until later this afternoon.

London Squares (Garages)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to make a statement about plans for garages under certain London squares.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Not yet, Sir.

Mr. Russell: Can my right hon. Friend say when any decision is likely to be reached? I realise that this problem will

demand consultations with many local authorities, but it is an urgent one. Can my right hon. Friend hold out some hope?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a problem which is very much concerned with a good many other aspects of the parking problem, and I would rather not name a date.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of controversy about this matter, and would he undertake to hold up any positive action in his Department until, as we hope, there may be a debate about it early on in the new Parliament?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my noble Friend that there is not general agreement on this subject, and it certainly is not likely that a statement will be made in the near future.

Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of transport units sold to date and the number of vehicles they comprised; and the number of companies disposed of and the number of vehicles owned by them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Up to 30th April, 14,685 vehicles had been sold; 14,283 in 4,956 units and 402 in three companies.

Mr. Davies: Do not these figures show that it is only possible to sell the vehicles in very small lots of one, two or three vehicles? Does not the latest result of the last list show that out of 6,000 vehicles offered for sale in that list only 400 have been sold? Do not these figures show the complete failure of this attempt to sell off these vehicles? Will not the Minister bring this fiasco to an end?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that, of the 22,500 vehicles offered two-thirds have been sold, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw any such deduction as that in his supplementary question.

Mr. Davies: Do not the latest results show that only 11 per cent. of the vehicles offered have been sold, and does not the right hon. Gentleman admit that that is a failure?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman cannot even jump to that conclusion, because there are a number of vehicles, even in that list, on which no decision has yet been made. The hon. Gentleman will be quite wrong, even though he might find it tactically agreeable, to confine his attention to one particular list, but the figures which I gave give the whole picture.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the facts to which my hon. Friend has called attention, will not the Minister come to the conclusion that it is no good dragging along like this? Ought we not to call a halt—call it a day, if he likes—and get the matter settled up, so that everybody will know where they are, instead of this drift? Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that the General Council of the Trades Union Congress—[Laughter.] I do not know why anybody is laughing. It is a very responsible body, to which the Government ought to be grateful for its help in industrial disputes. It has a great interest in the matter, and has a very responsible frame of mind about it. The General Council has appealed to the Government to allow this process to stop and let us have a settlement, so that the Transport Commission may know where it is and get on with its job.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As far as the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is concerned, I have had a letter from the Trades Union Congress in the last day or two, to which I shall reply fully. I cannot accept the implications in the right hon. Gentleman's Question that this matter is dragging along, in view of the fact that, since I answered Questions last week, 434 further vehicles have been sold.

Mr. Jay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this policy of inflicting losses on the British Transport Commission is making it more and more difficult for the Commission to meet reasonable wage claims?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That question indicates a complete failure to understand the whole of the financial provisions, including the levy, of the Transport Act, 1953.

Mr. Jay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that British Road

Services last year made a substantial profit, of which they will be deprived as a result of this policy?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I realise that, as British Road Services are successfully disposed of, naturally the profits from the undertaking will be less, but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the fact that the Transport Commission are compensated for that by the well thought out provisions in respect of the levy.

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what revision of the estimated loss arising from the disposal of vehicles he has made in accordance with Section 14 of the Transport Act, 1953.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None, Sir.

Mr. Davies: Why not? Since the Minister made his last estimate in September of a loss of £20 million, further vehicles have been offered for sale but only a proportion have been sold. Is it not a fact that his estimate of the loss of £20 million was based on the assumption that all the 32,500 vehicles would be sold, and, in view of his failure to sell some of them, will he not make a new estimate?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that two-thirds of the vehicles offered for sale have been sold, and the reason why I am not altering that estimate is because it seems to me to be about right.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think then that he will dispose of the 32,500 vehicles, in spite of the fact—and despite what he said about the list—that only 11 per cent. of the vehicles have been sold—only 400 out of the 6,000 offered?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A supplementary question confined to one list is not really any more effective the second time of repetition.

Driving and Traffic Examiners

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many of the 170 proposed additional driving and traffic examiners have been recruited to date; and how many it is proposed to assign to enforcement of Part I of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Sixty-four examiners have been recruited so far. None of these will be employed in the first place on enforcement duties in connection with the Road Traffic Acts, but the recruitment programme is designed to bring the total staff employed on such duties on the average throughout the year to 114.

Mr. Davies: Why does the Minister consider it necessary to increase the number of officials who will be engaged, partially at least, on enforcement work? Does he not admit that infringement of the law has increased recently with the sale of these vehicles and the cut-throat competition that is taking place?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am increasing the enforcement staff because, as the hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out to me on more than one occasion, it is at the moment below the pre-war level. I certainly do not accept the implication of a somewhat controversial character which he sought to inject into the question of enforcement of the law.

Mr. Davies: Has the Minister examined the evidence which I and other hon. Members have sent him regarding infringements of the law, relating to the increase in breaches of statutory requirements regarding hours of work and rest periods?'

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has sent me on this subject could be dignified by the description of evidence.

HOUSING (IMPROVEMENT GRANTS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now make a statement on the initial effect of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act on the checking of decay of older houses.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. W. F. Deedes): My right hon. Friend is glad to say that there has recently been a great increase of interest in this question. In the seven months after the Act came into force, about

15,000 improvement grants were approved, as compared with about 12,000 in the previous five years. About 1,100 local authorities are now operating the scheme.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the Minister appreciate that what he has said concerns a very small number of houses throughout the country? Is he not aware that various property owners' organisations have stated that the Act is failing? Does he not agree with that?

Mr. Deedes: I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman that we have in fact during the last seven months been doing 10 times better than we did in the preceding five years.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is not a fact that fewer men are engaged on repairs today than was the case six months or even 12 months ago? Will he say whether the effect of this Act has not been to transfer the already insufficient repair capacity from repairs that really needed doing to repairs which were simply done in order to qualify for an increase of rent?

Mr. Deedes: No, Sir; I cannot at all accept the implications of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Question.

Mr. Paget: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm my facts? Are there fewer people employed?

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Town and Country Planning (Claims)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many claims he has received for the repayment of development charge; how many such claims are classified as not established; and what are the total sums involved.

Mr. Deedes: Up to 29th April, 1955, the Central Land Board had received 78,829 applications for payments under Part I of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1954. Of the total applications received, 13,489 were from claim-holders who had paid a development charge. A detailed analysis of the applications is being made, but is not yet complete.

Mr. Vane: Thank you.

Water Supply and Sewerage Schemes, Norfolk

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will give the figures in respect of water supply and sewerage schemes authorised for the county of Norfolk from 1951 to the present time; and how much of the total expenditure will rank for grant aid.

Mr. Deedes: £2,493,000 for water supply and £1,564,000 for sewerage, of which £1,819,000 (water supply) and £869,000 (sewerage) rank for grant. These figures include work in the county boroughs of Norwich and Great Yarmouth.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that these figures are most gratifying, particularly since they happen to come at this particular moment?

MINISTRY OF FOOD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS)

Mr. Jay: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the introduction of the Order to transfer the remaining functions of the Ministry of Food.

The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): An Order to transfer to the Minister of Health the responsibility for food cleanliness and hygiene, except as regards slaughterhouses, meat and milk, and for the Food Hygiene Advisory Council is being prepared. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if it were introduced as early as possible in the new Parliament.

Mr. Jay: Can the Prime Minister explain why a Ministry which we thought had been abolished for the sake of economy will spend £50 million more this year than last year?

The Prime Minister: I have only been asked about this Order, and the reason why we have not laid the Order is one which I thought was agreeable to the House. I thought it would be wrong to lay it except when the House had a full opportunity to debate it. That is why I thought it would be better not to lay it now but to wait until the new Parliament before doing so.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: In considering these remaining functions of the Ministry

of Food, will the Prime Minister reconsider the position of the welfare food services, in view of the evidence that we have been given this week that the consumption of these very essential welfare foods is running down under the new arrangements initiated by the Government?

The Prime Minister: It is a problem, but it is a different one from the one mentioned in the Question.

Mr. Jay: Is there a Ministry of Food now, or is there not?

The Prime Minister: The position will not be altered by this Order. We remain as we are until the Order comes into effect. As I have said, the Order is not going to be laid—and I think rightly so—until the new Parliament. If we had laid it now, although it could be prayed against within 40 days, it would have come into effect. I take full responsibility for this. I thought the right decision was not to lay it.

Mr. Robens: In view of the statement that the Order will be laid in the new Parliament, do I take it that the Prime Minister consulted the Leader of the Opposition, whose function it will be to do this?

The Prime Minister: I was forecasting either intelligently or agreeably.

PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will investigate, as a matter of urgency, the difficulties of a married couple, aged 81 and 82 years, of whose name and address he has been informed, in view of the fact that their retirement pension has been increased by 11s. and their National Assistance grant reduced by 14s., so that they are 3s. a week worse off than they recently were; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. Ernest Marples): The National Assistance Board informs me that an adjustment in respect of 11s. of the old couple's National Assistance grant was made on 25th April to take account


of an increase of that amount in their retirement pensions. Over and above the scale rate and rent allowance, the Board has been making them a discretionary addition of 15s. a week to meet special circumstances, including 3s. which the couple were told at the end of January would be added temporarily for a particular purpose. That 3s. is no longer needed and will cease being paid from 9th May. The total income of the couple, including the scale rate increase of 4s. last February, will then be £4 12s. a week.

Mr. Driberg: Does that answer mean that there has been a net decrease, as they are firmly of the opinion that there has been—and after all, they should know?

Mr. Marples: No, the net result is that before my right hon. Friend's proposals the couple were receiving an income of £4 8s. a week. Now, in May, 1955, they are receiving an income of £4 12s. a week, which is a permanent addition of 4s. a week. In addition to that, from the end of January to 9th May, for special purposes, the couple received an additional 3s. a week. Those special circumstances now having changed, the additional 3s. has been taken away.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases the war service disability pension has been cut as the result of increased old age pensions for disabled men of the 1914–18 war.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Brigadier J. G. Smyth): None, Sir.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that there has been a cut of 2s. a week in the war disablement pension of a constituent of mine, Mr. A. Hyde, 2, Cottage Grove, S.W.9, a blind disabled ex-Service man of the 1914–18 war? Does the Minister not recall that I have written to him and spoken to him about this matter, and is it not a fact that it reaches a new low depth of calculating meanness when war disablement pensions are cut, irrespective of what other alterations are made in other pensions? Is it not a monstrous state of affairs that

a disabled ex-Service man's war disablement pension should be cut by this paltry amount?

Brigadier Smyth: War disablement pensions are not affected by increases in other pensions. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman realises that the case he sent to me was a very complicated matrimonial case in which a wife's allowance had been cut, but that had absolutely nothing to do with the increase in retirement pensions. However, I am looking very carefully into this difficult case and will write to the hon. and gallant Gentleman about it. I can assure him that it has nothing to do with the point that he mentioned.

CYPRUS (PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the hardship likely to be caused by the decision not to develop the port of Larnaca, Cyprus; and if he will reconsider this decision.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): As my right hon. Friend informed my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Major Wall) on 27th April, the Cyprus Government are having a detailed engineering survey made before final decisions are taken about the scale of port development. But, as regards the siting of such development, the Cyprus Government have sought the best available technical advice, and the advice so far received has been that, for various reasons, port development at Larnaca would be unjustifiably costly.

Mr. Driberg: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the memorandum containing a number of detailed arguments on this point, which I forwarded two days ago, is being studied?

Mr. Hopkinson: Certainly, the hon. Member's memorandum will be considered in the Colonial Office, but the Cyprus Government have gone into this matter very carefully. Not only is it a fact that Famagusta next door has already out-distanced Larnaca as a port—

Mr. Driberg: Next door?

Mr. Hopkinson: —and it will be very difficult for Larnaca to recover the ground, but there is also a very complicated technical objection, which is that the sea-bed slopes very gently at Larnaca and it would be extremely expensive to construct a deep water port there.

Mr. Driberg: When the right hon. Gentleman says that Larnaca is next door to Famagusta, could he say how many miles it is?

KENYA INDIAN CONGRESS (POLICY STATEMENT)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered a copy of the policy statement of the Kenya Indian Congress, a copy of which has been sent to him, which envisages self-government within the Commonwealth, a common electoral roll, no discrimination on grounds of race or religion and use of undeveloped land in the White Highlands by competent farmers of all races; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Hopkinson: My right hon. Friend has not yet received a copy of this Statement.

Mr. Brockway: Will the right hon. Gentleman make some inquiry into the postal communications between Nairobi and London if this document has not been received, and when he does receive it will he pay very serious attention to this recommendation, in view of the fact that the Indian population in Kenya is the second largest of the races there?

Mr. Hopkinson: I have no reason to believe that the document has been sent—

Mr. Brockway: Oh, yes.

Mr. Hopkinson: —but if my right hon. Friend receives the document, and if he is asked to comment, he will do so.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is it not a fact that there is very little undeveloped land in the White Highlands of Kenya?

AUSTRIAN STATE TREATY

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now state what progress has been made towards concluding an Austrian State Treaty.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made at the Conference of the four Ambassadors in Vienna with regard to the conclusion of the Austrian State Treaty.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The Conference of the four Ambassadors which began in Vienna on 2nd May, with the participation of the Austrian Foreign Minister, Dr. Figl, is at present discussing the draft text of the Austrian State Treaty article by article. Certain modifications of the text of an editorial nature are necessary because of the great lapse of time since the present draft was prepared. Other points require discussion in the light of the exchanges of views which took place between the Soviet and the Austrian Governments in their talks in Moscow last month. I hope it will be possible to make good progress.

Mr. Stewart: Could the right hon. Gentleman say that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, there is no obstacle to an early conclusion of this Treaty?

Mr. Macmillan: We want to make as rapid progress as possible. We have waited a long time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Can the Minister give any indication when it is likely that the Treaty will be signed?

Mr. Macmillan: From the most recent reports, it would appear that very rapid progress is being made, and I am hopeful that the meeting will be within the near future.

Mr. J. Hynd: When the Minister says that he hopes to make progress, will he bear in mind that this is an entirely new departure in the relations between the Soviet Union, Austria and ourselves? The proposals which have been made have been publicised, and I hope that we shall admit that they are a great advance on anything which has been done previously and which we have been prepared to sign. As there will be no sittings of this House within the next several weeks, will the right hon. Gentleman not make some statement which will give encouragement to the Austrian people who are a little disquieted about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Macmillan: The news is very good, but some adaptation is necessary in the complicated articles—40 or 50 in number—of the Treaty. Then there are the additional questions which have got to be defined. It is one thing to agree in principle and another to get the right formula. I think good progress is being made and that all the indications are very satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Refugees

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is satisfied that all those who wish to leave North Vietnam under the Geneva Agreement before 19th May will be able to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I fear I have nothing to add to the reply given yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser). We are watching the situation with some concern. We have now received the Report of the Commission, which we are studying closely. The Report will be published as soon as practicable, but the date for this must be agreed with the Soviet Government in the first instance.

Mr. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that according to some reports there are still 400,000 people who live in North Vietnam and who want to move to South Vietnam before 19th May? Can he say what will happen if they are unable to do so by the time the boundaries change?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. We are, of course, anxious to do everything we can. I am told that about one million people have moved. If there is any method of extending the time limit we shall be the first to try to achieve it.

Mr. Harold Davies: Could the right hon. Gentleman, before the House dissolves, assure the House that we shall not be involved under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation in any of these internal problems in this part of French Indo-China?

Mr. Macmillan: Our sole interest is to carry out loyally the terms of the Geneva Agreement.

Situation

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following the visit to Saigon of the High Commissioner for South-East Asia, he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to the situation in Vietnam, in the light of the Geneva Agreement.

Mr. H. Macmillan: Mr. MacDonald went to Saigon on a visit arranged some time ago. The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the situation in Vietnam continues to be based on the Final Declaration of the Geneva Conference. They consider that the solution of the present difficulties is primarily a matter for the Vietnamese people themselves, and hope to see a restoration of conditions in which law and order can be maintained, effective government introduced and the Geneva Settlements upheld.

Mr. Henderson: In view of the possible reactions of the situation upon the implementation of the Geneva Agreement, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister and Mr. Molotov were joint chairmen of the Conference, is the right hon. Gentleman keeping in touch with Mr. Molotov on these developments?

Mr. Macmillan: If it becomes apparent that there are problems within the scope of the joint chairmen, no doubt that will be done. But the problem at the present time seems to be an internal problem which we hope the people will be able to settle satisfactorily themselves.

DISARMAMENT (LONDON CONFERENCE)

Mr. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is expected that the London Conference on Disarmament will be resumed.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As the hon. Member may be aware, the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee resumed its meetings on 3rd May.

Mr. Fletcher: Is it intended that this Conference shall continue to hold meetings after the Dissolution? Will the Minister make known publicly from time to time what progress is being made at the disarmament talks?

Mr. Macmillan: Of course our representative is only one of a number, and although perhaps his convenience might be studied and it might be possible to have a short adjournment, our duty is to go on with the Conference as long as it has any hopes of doing useful work. We must not weary of well-doing just because we have a little private problem of our own.

PRIMROSE HILL (RAILINGS)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Works if he will now remove the railings around Primrose Hill.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Nigel Birch): It is proposed this summer to restore the view finder and to carry out certain work on the summit. If no further damage is done I shall consider again whether the railings should be removed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Norses (Pay)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Minister of Health why there has been a delay in the issue of circulars announcing the agreements reached by the Whitley Council on behalf of the auxiliary nursing grades and the general salary increases for all nursing staffs, thus preventing hospital authorities from implementing these agreements.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): The agreement on nursing auxiliaries was issued to hospital authorities on 3rd May and that on nursing salaries generally is now being printed and will be issued on 13th May. These documents give detailed effect to the broad agreement reached by the Whitley Council and some time necessarily elapsed before their terms were finally settled between the parties.

Mr. Bottomley: Does not the Minister agree that there has been unnecessary delay and that it has caused some discontent? Will he give the matter his attention to see that it does not happen again?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir, if I could help. But of course the right hon. Gentleman, who has great experience in this field, knows that when an agreement in principle is reached on Whitley it is often a very complicated job, particularly where so many grades are involved, to translate it into a document which can be put into practice.

Poliomyelitis Vaccine

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Health what advice he has received from the Medical Research Council with regard to tests of Salk anti-polio vaccine intended for experimental use in this country.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I do not think I can add to the written reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman), which appears in this morning's OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister confirm that there will be no experimental tests on children in this country until a full report has been obtained from the United States? Will he see that the fullest possible information is given to the public on this subject as soon as inquiries in the United States have been completed?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. The answer is "Yes" to both parts of the question. The Medical Research Council has sent a representative by air to America to investigate the present position on the spot. His report will be with us well before the time planned for the tests. There will be no tests of any sort upon children until we are fully satisfied about these matters.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Does the Minister recall that only a week ago he was being criticised by an hon. Member opposite for not pressing on quickly enough with these experimental tests?

Mr. Elliot: Will the Minister again make it clear that no tests will be carried out on any of the children without the full consent of both the children and the parents?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I am very glad to make that clear again. Full consent will be obtained in all cases.

RIFLE RANGE, LINCOLN (COMPLAINT)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the nuisance caused to the residents of Yarborough Crescent. Lincoln, by the daily firing practice on the rifle range at the barracks on Burton Road; and what steps he will take to lessen this nuisance either by holding the firing practice outside the city or by building screening walls to reduce the noise.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): This is the first complaint we have received about this range, and I am seeing whether anything can be done to reduce the noise of firing.

PARIS AGREEMENTS (ENTRY INTO FORCE)

Mr. H. Macmillan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on the occasion of the formal entry into force of the Paris Agreements. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Bonn—and I am happy to say that today we again have an Ambassador in Germany—is today depositing the Instruments of Ratification of the documents on the Termination of the Occupation Regime in the Federal Republic of Germany and of the Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic. Her Majesty's Ambassadors at Brussels and Washington are also depositing today the Instruments of Ratification of the Seven Power Agreements on the Western European Union and the Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty.
As the House knows, it has long been our purpose to see German sovereignty restored and Germany welcomed again as an equal member in the fellowship of the Western democracies. This policy has had its set-backs from time to time, notably when the French Assembly last summer found itself unable to accept the European Defence Community Treaty. Nevertheless, due to the inspiration and determination of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a fresh basis was found at the London Conference of last October, and full agreement was reached shortly afterwards in Paris. My right hon. Friend gave the House a full account of the effects of these Agreements on 25th October last year.
I only wish to mark the historic character of today's events in Bonn, Brussels and Washington. The entry into force of the Paris Agreement allows Germany to reassume the functions of a sovereign State and allows her to take her place as a full member of Western European Union and of N.A.T.O. Future generations will, I believe, look back on this day as a landmark in the history of Europe. The successful and formal conclusion of these negotiations will be greeted with relief and satisfaction by the whole free world. This is the firm base from which we can proceed to the next step. We shall now seek, together with our Allies, early discussions with the Soviet Union on the many outstanding problems which confront us all. We earnestly pray that these discussions may prove fruitful.

Mr. H. Morrison: We welcome the statement which has been made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and we are glad that these Agreements have now been reached. Certainly a proper share of the credit is due to the Prime Minister for having assisted, in his former office, in rescuing the situation after the rejection of E.D.C. by the French Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If I may say so, credit belongs to this side of the House, too. My friend the late Ernest Bevin initiated the policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I myself took an active part in this matter in Washington in September, 1951. I am glad that it has now been settled.
Let us hope, Sir, that the result of this will be that Germany, whom we welcome among the sovereign States of Europe, will make a success of her democracy and will be an active and valuable partner and co-operator with the Western democracies, not for war but for the peace of the world, and that we will be able to co-operate to that end. Let us hope that there will soon be a united Germany.
I would just add the hope that now that this point is reached, which has been the subject of some controversy in the country and among politicians, Her Majesty's Government will continue to make efforts—will indeed now redouble their efforts—to get high-level talks with the Soviet Union and with other appropriate Governments with a view to


effecting the unification of Germany and promoting policies that will help the peace of Europe and of the world.

Mr. Smithers: When the Council of Europe debated the situation after the collapse of the E.D.C. Treaty it was felt by members of the Council, of all parties and in all nations, that Europe itself might be on the point of collapse. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the gratitude and relief felt for the extraordinary success of the vigorous initiative of the Prime Minister which at that time made the Paris Agreements possible must extend to people of all parties throughout Europe?

Mr. Younger: I welcome the restoration of sovereignty to the Federal Republic, but will the Foreign Secretary agree that none of the arrangements so far made for the future of Germany can be regarded as anything other than provisional, if only because that is the way in which they are regarded by so many Germans? Does he agree that they are bound to have this provisional character until we can get the unification at least of the former zones of occupation? Will he, therefore, take a very early initiative setting out the sort of terms on which we think four-Power agreement for that purpose might be achieved?

Mr. Macmillan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Of course this marks a stage in a long journey—only a stage, but nevertheless a very important stage—upon which we hope further progress can be made. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), we will certainly pursue and—I think his words were—redouble our efforts in the attempt to reach conversations and discussions on a four-Power basis, among heads of Governments if possible, to achieve at any rate the foundation upon which further progress can be made.

Mr. Bellenger: The Foreign Secretary has said that on 25th October the Prime Minister stated what the effect of the Paris Agreements would be. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that no peace treaty has yet been entered into. Is it possible for him in some way or other—perhaps by the issue of a White Paper—

to state precisely what are the constitutional effects of the Paris Agreements now that they have come into force, and at the same time show what remains over for the peace treaty?

Mr. Macmillan: I will certainly consider that. If the right hon. Gentleman will get in touch with me as to the precise kind of information wanted, we will see if we can get a useful document prepared.

Mr. Paget: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted, not in the German Government but in some organs of German opinion, a rather alarming inclination to accept the advantages of the Paris Agreements but to query their obligations? Would it not be as well to point out to that aspect of German opinion that the Paris Agreements stand as one and that if the burdens were rejected the sovereignty would not last for long?

Mr. Macmillan: Yes, Sir. But the tendency to accept benefits and reject obligations is not a characteristic solely of the Germans, and I should prefer to rest upon the sure loyalty of the Chancellor and the German Government.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Could the Foreign Secretary say what are our commitments under the Paris Agreements in respect of keeping British troops on the Continent of Europe, how long those British troops will continue there, and what he expects the country's financial liability will be in that respect?

Mr. Macmillan: We debated that at very great length and very clearly. I am not sure whether we reached any fixed conclusion on all sides of the House, but at any rate there was, I think, no opposition recorded, except a very small one, to the general feeling that these results were satisfactory.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Whether or not there was opposition, does the Foreign Secretary mean that he has not yet worked out what will be the cost to the British Government of the restoration of German sovereignty for the maintenance of our troops abroad?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir, because negotiations are still going on about that matter.

Mr. Harold Davies: Does the Foreign Secretary realise that those of us who sincerely believe that this may have been an historic error nevertheless feel that perhaps it is not the moment to make party jibes about this decision? Will he therefore believe me, and those of us on this side, when I say that we sincerely desire that, whatever Government is returned to power after the decision of the British people has been democratically made, a wholehearted effort will be made to try to come to an understanding with the U.S.S.R., so that those great colossi, the U.S.S.R., the U.S.A. and also the British Commonwealth, may learn to live together in peace?

Mr. Macmillan: Mr. Macmillan indicated assent.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — CYPRUS

3.39 p.m.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: The Opposition have asked for time today to discuss Cyprus. One reason, among others, is that it is nearly a year since the House discussed the affairs of this island, and then only in a spontaneous argument which arose out of two rather ill-wedded announcements made by Ministers of the Crown. The first was that the Middle East headquarters was to be moved from Suez to Cyprus; and the second was that a constitutional offer had been made to Cyprus which many of us on this side regarded as inadequate and undemocratic in that the elected members were to be in a minority as compared with nominated members.
At that time various aspects of the constitutional offer were quite unclear, and the House was told that discussions were to take place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made it quite clear that the Labour Party's position in this matter was reserved and that we would look at the whole question again. Since last July the House has not had an opportunity to consider the affairs of Cyprus, and that is why we are doing so today.
We would like to know—I think the House has a right to know—what progress has been made in the discussions which, we understand, have been going on about the constitutional future of Cyprus. Has the Governor been able to find any Cypriot of authority or anybody in that country in a responsible position who has been prepared to talk to him about it? Because, unfortunately, Cyprus has been under direct rule for so long—since 1931—we on this side fully appreciate the difficulties of negotiating with persons of any status or authority.
The only people in Cyprus who have any electoral sanction at all are the Archbishop, who, rather unusually to our way of thinking, is elected by adult male suffrage in the island, and the mayors of the six municipalities, three of whom are Conservatives and three of whom are members of the Progressive People's Party, usually known as Akel and normally regarded as Communists. We understand, however, that none of these men, from Left or from Right, will even talk about this constitutional offer. We understand the difficulties which this raises, for we had a similar experience when my right hon. Friends waited from 1948 to 1951 for a more liberal and hopeful constitution to commend itself to the people of Cyprus.
We would like to know whether the Governor has been able to talk about this to the trade union leaders, Communist or anti-Communist, or to the leaders of the political parties, the Conservatives and the Communists, or the small Labour Party, which we on this side would like to see grow to greater influence and activity as a democratic alternative for the right and fair demands of the working people of Cyprus.
Has the Governor talked with representatives of professional organisations—for example, the doctors, the teachers and lawyers? I very much fear that the answer to all these questions is "No." If, in fact, the discussions have been limited, as is rumoured, to representatives of the Turkish minority and to people with no organisational backing, there seems no future for them whatever, and the sooner this is faced the better.
It is no use saying that people who are in favour of the Constitution are afraid to say so or are afraid to organise, because we cannot put the constitutional future of Cyprus into the hands of mute and frightened men who have no support from the whole range of public opinion, from extreme Left to extreme Right, from Conservative to Communist. It is most unusual in the history of Europe that there should be a solid line-up on such a broad front. The only recent example that I can remember is that which obtained in the Maquis and other resistance movements of the last war. When we get a situation in which Left and Right,

Christian and anti-Christian, are all saying the same thing, that in itself is a very strong reason for our listening to what they are saying.
The present political impasse in Cyprus dates from 1931. Neither party has been able to break through it; let us face that frankly. May it not be—I put the question no more strongly than this—that we cannot go forward because we have not been on the right road?
Sometimes, in mountaineering, one reaches an impossible point—it has happened to me very often—and the sooner one stops, looks round carefully, makes a reconnaissance, accepts the inevitable and tries an alternative and often a very nearby route, the better. With delay, as any mountaineer knows, come darkness and danger. The blackest pages in our history have often been those which tell of actions taken and decisions made after a long lapse of years, decisions which could equally well have been taken years earlier and saved a tremendous amount of unfriendliness and bitterness. We on this side, and, I think, all good friends of Cyprus, feel that something like that may be happening in that very beautiful island.
The world is full of intractable problems, but Cyprus is not intrinsically one of them. Although folly and obstinacy may make it so, it is not intrinsically an intractable problem. The people are, as many hon. Members know, courteous, friendly and well-disposed towards us. I know that the Secretary of State knows this from personal experience, and that he himself is remembered in the island. The reports which we have received of violence in Cyprus are a matter of deep regret to us all. These are methods which no responsible people in Cyprus or this country can support. I am sure that we are all completely united in utterly deploring them.
But, having said that, where do we go from there? Often, when I was in Cyprus, men of great friendliness to Britain, men of wisdom and of moderation, put their dilemma to me. "We are not a violent people," they would say; "we tell our wild young men that Britain is friendly and fair and that we must negotiate for what we want. We must not behave, like Egyptians or Palestinians, to get rid of the British, but try to part as friends." But what answer can the


moderate men give if Britain refuses to talk about the problem which concerns the people most?
Greeks especially like to talk. They did in the days of Pericles and they still very much like to talk, even more than most people, but when the British Government oppose the discussion of Cyprus in the United Nations, when it is said in this House that any change in sovereignty is undiscussable—I use the deplorable, ugly word coined, I believe, by the Secretary of State—it is those friendly men who lose face in their own country and the others who profit and who say to them, "You see, your way does not work with the British."
The settling in Cyprus of thousands of British Service men brings added urgency to this problem. We have brought these men from Suez because we do not want them in bases surrounded by hostility. I am sure that there is no instinctive unfriendliness to our soldiers by the people of Cyprus. For me, in the words of Othello, it is true to say of the Cypriots that
I have found great love amongst them.
But it is what the soldiery represents that causes trouble and friction.
There are, too, serious practical problems when an army arrives on a small island the size of Cyprus and takes 7,000 precious acres of land—that is a lot to the land-starved peasantry in Cyprus. The economy is bound to be disturbed and the cost of living distorted when an army starts spending—as we have been told in the House our Army is to spend in the next ten years—£30 million. Already, inflation is having a serious effect on the cost of living of the ordinary people of Cyprus. None of these things helps in a situation of constitutional difficulty.
I hope that other hon. Members will deal more fully with the strategical aspect of the problem. I would say only two things. First, I hope very much that in these days of nuclear weapons, those responsible are fully and deeply convinced of the usefulness of putting a base in a confined island space which could be completely obliterated by one explosion. Secondly, I cannot help thinking that the security and usefulness of a base is in direct relation to the degree of co-operation and consent of the people

in whose country it is situated and whose lives are endangered. A base freely and willingly leased to N.A.T.O. would seem to be worth infinitely more than one planted by a colonial Power in an unwilling country.
I believe that it is long past the time when this House must face honestly and without prejudice the one issue which has confounded our relations with Cyprus from the beginning.
I must refer to the demand for integration with Greece, started as long ago as 1878, when the first British representatives were greeted in Cyprus by the Archbishop, who expressed the hope that British rule would be the golden bridge by which Cyprus was returned to Greece. It is not my business here today to plead the Greek cause. What we do on this side of the House is reaffirm our belief in the right of colonial peoples to self-determination. We see no cause in morality or reason why the people of Cyprus should be made an exception.
The difference between the two sides of the House was made clear in the debate on 28th July, 1954, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said, speaking of Cyprus:
… we have always declared that self-government within the Commonwealth will reach the stage at which they will be, within the meaning of the Statute at Westminster, independent and entitled at that stage to decide for themselves their future relations with the Commonwealth.
My right hon. Friend reserved our position on Cyprus. On the other side, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said:
… there are certain territories in the Commonwealth which, owing to their particular circumstances, can never expect to be fully independent … I have said that the question of the abrogation of British sovereignty cannot arise—that British sovereignty will remain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 507–8.]
We say today that that right of self-determination may involve the abrogation of British sovereignty, as it did in India and Burma, and more recently in the Sudan.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I did go on to make it perfectly clear by explaining that I was not referring to Cyprus in that connection.

Mrs. Jeger: In that case, I am not sure to which part of the British territories the Minister was referring, if not to Cyprus.

Mr. Tom Driberg: May I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) that later in the debate the then Secretary of State, now Lord Chandos, intervened to say that the Minister of State had not used the word "never" and that it was not strictly true. He also added "at no time in the foreseeable future," or words to that effect, which come to much the same thing.

Mrs. Jeger: A much more important statement was made in this House as long ago as 1946, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee), then Prime Minister, who said:
We invite, but we do not compel people to stay in the British Empire.
That is still our attitude on this side of the House.
Is it not time, in the interests of all, to make a fresh approach now? Each side in this House has said at different times that a change of policy cannot be considered, talked about or asked for, and all progress has been broken on that rock. A rather unhelpful statement came from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 23rd July, when he said:
I trust that we shall hear no more of this agitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1954; Vol. 530, c. 1852.]
The locusts have eaten the years while we have carried on arid arguments about the Greekness of Cyprus. I will not weary the House with a repetition of this case, which inevitably becomes a lesson in history, geography, mythology, philosophy and philology, and all sorts of other things. Any useful discussion must start with the assumption that Cypriots, apart from the Turkish minority, are Greeks. I ask the House to believe, not me but Sir Ronald Storrs, a former Governor, who said in 1931:
The Greekness of the Cypriot is indisputable. No sensible person would deny that the Cypriot is Greek-speaking, Greek-thinking and Greek-feeling.
I am sure that our position in Cyprus today would have been quite different if from the start we had accepted this, and had encouraged the pride of the people in their share of Hellenic culture. We, in this country, have a distinguished Greek tradition ourselves, in Greek scholarship and phil-Hellenism. We could have staffed the administration of Cyprus with

phil-Hellenes, endowed the archaeological expeditions with generosity and acknowledged our common debt to the civilisation of Greece.
From that sort of approach perhaps we might have worked out a French Canada or Channel Islands compromise, but I feel rather strongly that the opportunity for that may now have gone.

Mr. Bernard Braine: Is the hon. Lady arguing that there is a suppression of Greek culture in Cyprus? If so, would she give illustrations?

Mrs. Jeger: I am saying that too much time has been spent arguing whether or not the Cypriot people are, apart from the Turkish minority, really Greeks. I say that we must alter our approach.
There is no reason why the whole of this argument about Hellenism should ever have been a matter of contention between us. Why bother to argue about it? We all know by now that nationalism is a force which, in this age of the world, must be accepted and not fought against. As long as we dismiss the Greek aspect of the Cyprus question as propaganda, from either Left or Right, we shall never be able to talk sense with these people. It is like broadcasting on the wrong wavelength and then complaining because nobody hears us. Let us start by accepting, so that we do not close the door.
If this claim to Greekness puzzles anybody, let them try to understand it and its deep roots, and not dismiss it as unrealistic and absurd. Certainly, this does not help people at all. Gladstone knew about this and so did the right hon. Gentleman the ex-Prime Minister, when he was at the Colonial Office. I have quoted his words in this House before. So did Lloyd George, when he offered Cyprus to Greece in 1915 on condition that Greece joined the war on the side of the Allies. Greece was exhausted by the Balkan wars and was not able to join the Allies until 1917. That lapse of two years was used as an excuse at the Peace Conference for not fulfilling the Lloyd George offer.
The fact that that offer was made by a Prime Minister of this country seems to the people of Cyprus to give substance to their claim and to the fact that their cause could not have been such a wildly impossible idea, when a responsible Prime Minister of this country made


that offer to the Greek Government. That has never been denied.
All this has been going on far too long to be just a Moscow anti-N.A.T.O. plot. Any argument on those lines is unworthy of us. Let us approach the situation differently. I do not see how we can cure the situation otherwise or do anything helpful about it.
I want to save the time of the House by taking history as read. I will only mention that the Greek orientation of many influential people in the island has been strengthened by their having to turn so often to Athens for education in many walks of life, and particularly for their professional education. There are now a few more students, especially law students, in this country from Cyprus because it is now compulsory for them to study English law, but for generations there was no encouragement for Cypriot students to come here, to Oxford and Cambridge or to our other universities. For generations they have all been going to Athens. In Cyprus, in almost every town and village, the doctor, teacher, nurse, architect, administrator and archaeologist, have been trained in Athens. I do not think that it is right for us to complain about that Greek orientation which they feel so strongly.
There is only one other aspect of this Greek orientation which I want to mention. It is one which too often is overlooked. During the last war 15,000 volunteers from Cyprus joined the Cyprus Regiment for service overseas. Many of these men went to fight in Greece, and 3,000 of them were taken prisoner in Greece and Crete. Of nine companies of volunteers who, in March, 1941, went to fight against our common enemy in Greece there were only enough survivors to re-form two companies. In those days the official recruiting posters in Cyprus said, "Fight for Greece and Liberty." That was the mood in which so many of these young men volunteered to fight in those bitter campaigns in Greece and Crete.
I often asked a taxi driver or a lorry driver who had pulled up to eat his lunch under a tree what he knew about Greece and whether he had been there. One would answer, "I fought in Greece for three years." Another one would answer, "No, I have never been there. I only know that my father was killed in

Greece." Out of a comparatively small population, a total of 15,000 volunteers is quite a considerable number to have had these experiences.
I would ask hon. Members who dismiss Enosis as pure sentiment to respect it at least and to remember that sentiment is strong enough to lead men to that kind of mortal danger. If one is prepared to accept that, perhaps the words of Henry V before Agincourt would best enable one to understand what the Cypriots feel:
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; … 
That is a very real feeling in Cyprus today.
If we can start afresh and break through the failure to understand national feeling in Cyprus we can get off our backs this witch who seems to have been bedevilling all our talks.
Where can we go from here? The main argument that I have heard in Cyprus and in this House has been the argument of the material benefits which Cypriots have obtained from British rule. It is, "Look what we have done for you." That is the argument which parents often use with children when they want to leave home, but I do not believe that one wayward child has been kept at home by that argument. It is an argument which is certainly ill received in Cyprus.
I am reminded of the earlier Enosis movement when the Ionian Islands wanted to go to Greece. Many of the arguments were similar to those which are used today about Cyprus. One hon. Member, a Colonel Dunne, spoke very seriously in this House of the strategic considerations, saying that Sir Charles Napier had pointed out that Corfu, distant by 80 hours' steaming from any strong position in the Mediterranean, was one of the most valuable possessions we could hold in that quarter. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer said, according to HANSARD of 18th March, 1864:
It is perfectly true that the English Government has conferred great benefits on the Ionian Islanders, and yet they may cherish a sincere desire for union with Greece. For after all, it is not material advantages that form the entire life of the people … all men professed the desire of union with Greece … the good men felt it, and the bad men traded on it.
I am sure that that is true of Cyprus.
Mr. Chichester Fortescue said on the same day:
No doubt the Ionian people would have to make some sacrifice of ease, comfort and security for the sake of obtaining the object of their patriotic wishes—wishes, which, though stimulated by political agitators for their own purposes, were … sincerely felt both by many enlightened Ionians, and by the simple and well-disposed peasantry of the Islands in general. … It was their hope also that the irritation attending the change, and caused by the conditions which the British Government had been compelled to impose would pass away, and that the Ionians would look back with good and kindly feelings to the Power which had so long ruled them, and at last had granted them that which they so warmly desired.
I do not think that any harm has come to our good name and to our cause in the Middle East by this policy towards the Ionian Islands. On the contrary, I wish that we could hear from the Government the same sentiments as were expressed by Earl Russell in another place in 1863, when he said:
It would not be becoming the British Government, provided the Ionian people wish to be united to Greece, to thwart that wish.
But, of course, we must be sure what the people of Cyprus want.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Would the hon. Lady say something about the attitude of the Turkish minority?

Mrs. Jeger: Yes, of course.
It had been the wish of this side of the House that through constitutional machinery the elected, authoritative voice of the people could have been heard in Cyprus. This failed, and is still failing, because every constitutional offer has been conditional on our not hearing anything about a change of sovereignty. In negotiations, each side often has to give way over something if one wants to break a deadlock, and we on this side of the House honestly want to see this deadlock broken. If this is what we have to give to get constructive talks started—an undertaking that would allow the question of the future association of Cyprus with Greece to be at least discussed, to put it no higher than that—surely it is not too heavy a price to pay for the breaking of a profitless and degrading deadlock which helps nobody but the agitators who exploit it. The granted prayer is the most dreaded curse of every political agitator.
The Colonial Secretary is in his place today, but this question also touches closely on foreign affairs. The interests of the Greek and Turkish Governments lift this question out of the realm of a domestic colonial issue into the realm of an international problem in which our position in N.A.T.O. and in the world is involved. The problem also concerns the Turkish Government and 18 per cent. of the population of Cyprus who are Turks, and whose views on this subject must be heard; but while I emphasise the rights of the minority we must be honest and agree that it is not only minorities who have rights.
Greece, our traditional ally, has been gradually gathering the islands into her kingdom since the foundation of Greece. The Ionian Islands, the Dodecanese and Rhodes and so on have come in. One appreciates the interest of Turkey as well, but surely the position is different today when Greece and Turkey are both members of N.A.T.O. Surely it should be possible for free Powers with common membership of N.A.T.O. to meet and discuss the situation, if necessary in diplomatic private talks. I realise that this is not a question for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but it is so relevant that reference must be made to it.
I cannot understand why it is that only the views of Turkey are so often referred to and quoted sympathetically and rather more strongly than the views of Greece, which, after all, has perhaps a better record of alliance with this country. I would not want to refer to old wars and disputes but only to ask that equal weight might at least be given to the representations which we receive from Greece as to the views of Turkey.
It is a matter of great regret to me, and I am sure to hon. Members on both sides of the House, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) is away ill, because he probably knows some of these problems better than anyone else. I remember that at the last annual conference of the Labour Party, at Scarborough, when we were discussing this question, my right hon. Friend told us about being at Istanbul with Nansen, in 1922, when 1½ million Greeks came out of Turkey as refugees. Nansen proposed an exchange of population—that the Turkish population of 400,000 should be moved from Greece to Asia Minor


which the Greeks had left. Within a week there was a deputation from the Turks to see Nansen, begging not to be moved. I do not know why, but that is an historical fact.
In the short time I was able to spend in Greece I did not see any evidence which would support the point of view that the Turkish minority is bound to be persecuted. I would be the first to claim that in any settlement that was made the rights of all minorities in Cyprus, not only the Turks, must be protected and upheld.
What is the next step? Very much, of course, depends on what the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs tells us today. On our side, we feel that if this deadlock is continued, and there is no honest and realistic discussion which makes it seem possible to accept this constitution, then we would support a proposal for discussions possibly on a new constitution or, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly said,
not a Constitution but discussions on a Constitution…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 556.]
I am sure that with the British genius for compromise we must be able to find a formula for getting round a conference table the Governor and the Archbishop, who have never once met, the six mayors of Cyprus, who are the only elected representatives of the people apart from their municipal councils, the trade union leaders, and perhaps the leaders of the political parties. A formula could be arranged by which we can talk about the future of the island instead of continuing in this harsh silent way, for which there is a responsibility on us all.
Meanwhile, I should like to see more Cypriots in positions of responsibility in Cyprus and a greater development of local government if that is possible. I think there is a great scope to improve the administration. There are some very good men working for us in Cyprus, but not all of them are as good as they should be and some do not appreciate that they are in Europe and in a highly civilised country which was Christian long before Britain heard the Word. Sometimes one cannot be completely happy about the attitude of some of our officers to the people among whom they work.
I should like to refer to one detail which I consider important, namely, the radio service. I was appalled, when I

was in Cyprus, to find that the debate that had taken place in this House last July about the island was not summarised or broadcast in any form to the people of the island by the official Cyprus radio. When I asked about this I was told, "We are not allowed to broadcast anything about the island." I was so disbelieving about this that I asked to see the scripts. Everyone was very co-operative and on that day all that the radio officer had been allowed to put over the radio was the formal statement made in the House by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs on the offer of the Constitution. Not a word about the expressions of opinion from this side of the House, not a word about the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, who was speaking for the Labour Party; not even an objective B.B.C. "Today in Parliament" summary of our debate.
I very much hope that a new directive has gone out over this matter, because the officers were not happy working according to this rule. It did less than no good, because the English newspapers can be bought very easily in Cyprus and, in any case, all the Cypriots have to do is what hon. Members opposite complain so much about, tune in to Athens Radio that is making propaganda on the subject, and not only that, but they could pick up from Athens the B.B.C.'s own news bulletin in Greek giving the summary of the debate in this House to which they were not allowed to listen on the Cyprus radio.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: (Coventry, East)": Scandalous and stupid.

Mrs. Jeger: A ridiculous incident occurred which illustrates the attitude of some of the people in authority. A few days after my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) went to Cyprus, an hon. Member opposite arrived. Cyprus Radio, in its news bulletin, told the people that the hon. Member opposite had arrived in the island, but no mention was made of the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon had already landed.

Mr. Crossman: Of course not, he is impartial.

Mrs. Jeger: I am sure that modesty forbids my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon thinking that this was important


or that it mattered. The importance is not about him, I agree, but the importance is that everybody in Cyprus knew that my hon. Friend was there. It was on the front page of every local paper of every language.
That sort of thing builds up a lack of confidence. How can there be any sensible listener reaction in Cyprus when the people are given such obvious examples of propaganda? In all honesty, I must say there was a belated attempt to put that right in that my own inconspicuous visit a week or so later qualified for mention on the official radio.
To come seriously again to some of the points we have been trying to consider, I want to end by reminding the House of some words of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly on 28th July, last when we were discussing this matter. He said that we must give
an undertaking that the Constitution will be a beginning towards democratic independence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 556.]
The colonial era, whether we like it or not is over. In Cyprus, as in many other places, we have to come to terms with the twentieth century. No solution either here or anywhere else that is based on a denial of human rights will help. It will not help Greece, Turkey, Cyprus or the free world anywhere and least of all will it help this country to maintain the moral leadership of the free world which is our right and, I believe, our responsibility.

4.18 p.m.

The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): This is the first time that we have debated Cyprus since it was raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on the Consolidated Fund Bill on 28th July last. We had a rather interesting debate on that occasion. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) that our debates here should be fully reported on the Cyprus radio. I know the new director of the radio broadcasting service in Cyprus, and I feel sure that he can be relied upon to see that that is done in the future.

Mr. Crossman: If he is allowed.

Mr. Hopkinson: I welcome this opportunity of giving the House some account of the events in Cyprus itself or affecting Cyprus in the past nine months. I am very well aware of the anxiety which political developments in Cyprus have aroused in this country and, indeed, of the very considerable controversy to which they have given rise.
I hope that hon. Members in all parts of this House will agree that it is neither in the interests of the people of Cyprus themselves nor of Anglo-Greek or Anglo-Turkish relations that any statements made this afternoon should tend to exacerbate the situation out there which is tense or, indeed, to hamper the efforts of this Government, or any Government that may succeed us, to achieve a solution. Here, I would like to say that I welcomed the moderate speech of the hon. Lady which, although I did not agree with it all, seemed to me to put her views of the case very fairly indeed.
Inevitably, public opinion in this country has tended to concentrate on political events in Cyprus to the exclusion of some of those economic and social matters in which great progress has been made and is being made, and which are of the greatest importance to the future of the people of Cyprus. It is one of the misfortunes of this situation that Cypriot thought has tended to become almost entirely concentrated on the political theme. Having regard to the strong feelings which are held both among the Turkish and the Greek communities in Cyprus this is perhaps inevitable, but it is none the less regrettable. I hope that the House will bear with me if, later, I touch on some of these important economic and social matters which have not been discussed in this House before.
I also welcome this debate on personal grounds. The dispute with the Greek Government over the Cyprus issue has inevitably caused distress to all of us in this country. The friendship between Britain and Greece is traditional and indeed, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence said at the United Nations last autumn, it has been almost a model friendship in the past. To me these differences have been particularly painful, owing to the fact that before and during the war my associations with the Greeks were very close indeed. I have lived with them


and worked with them, in good times and in bad, and, I believe, with mutual confidence and friendship. So it has been for me a matter of great personal regret that these differences with our old friends over this issue should have arisen and should have involved me as well.
Of course, any personal feelings of this kind have to be subordinated to what is first and foremost our responsibility in this House. That is, the interests of the people of Cyprus themselves and the wider interests and matters to which I shall refer. I think all hon. Members who have studied this question realise how complex is the problem. These complexities are partly the legacy of history. They are also, in a large measure, due to the multi-racial character of the population of Cyprus. Although, as the hon. Lady has said, the two main communities are British subjects, they have close racial, cultural and religious ties with two neighbouring sovereign States. These feelings are strongly held.
No one would deny the Hellenism of the Greek population of Cyprus. Nor would anyone contest the deep attachment of the 100,000 Turkish-speaking Moslems to Turkey. On more than one occasion—the hon. Lady referred to it again this afternoon—quotations have been made from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir Winston Churchill) in 1907 when, as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, he paid a visit to Cyprus. He said it was only natural that the Cyprus people, who are of Greek descent. should regard their incorporation with what may be called their Mother Country as an ideal to be earnestly and devotedly cherished. However, what people forget to quote is what my right hon. Friend said after that. I have never heard it in this House. They forget that my right hon. Friend went on to say that he trusted that those who felt so earnestly themselves would not forget that they must show respect for the similar feelings of others. He went on to point out that the opinion held by the Moslem people of the island was one which the Government were equally bound to regard with respect.
Finally, there are the strategic implications of this situation. When he speaks later in the debate my right hon. Friend

the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be dealing with that point. What is clear is that British strategic interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and our obligations to the neighbouring Arab States—and, indeed, the interests of the whole Western world, bound up, as they are, with N.A.T.O. and a strong Balkan Alliance—are involved in the question of Cyprus.
I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I give some account of the events which followed the announcement of the intention of Her Majesty's Government last July to introduce a new Constitution in Cyprus. On 22nd August, the Greek Government lodged an application with the Secretariat of the United Nations for the inscription of Cyprus on the provisional agenda of the General Assembly. This action certainly raised the hopes and fanned the enthusiasm of those people in Cyprus who are seeking union with Greece.
As hon. Members will know, the inscription of the item on the final agenda was opposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on the ground that if a precedent was set for the consideration by the United Nations of attempts by one member to obtain the cession of territory which is recognised as being under the sovereignty of another, scarcely any territorial settlement would be inviolate, and a premium would be set upon agitation in support of claims for the revision of territorial treaties.
My right hon. and learned Friend also pointed out that any United Nations discussion of the affairs of Cyprus was inadmissible since, in the view of the United Kingdom Government, it was definitely excluded under Article 2 (7) of the Charter. In the event, the item was accepted by the General Assembly for inscription. However, so many doubts were aroused in the minds of those who saw the dangers of this precedent, and who saw how damaging the effect on the relations of all the countries concerned could be—that is to say, on Great Britain, on Greece and on Turkey, and, indeed, on the security of the whole free world—that the General Assembly, in its resolution of 17th December, decided not to consider further the item in question.
However it must be apparent that the hopes and uncertainties to which these


discussions in New York gave rise, inevitably greatly complicated the task of the Governor in going forward with his plans for a new Constitution. As long as many people in Cyprus believed, and believed sincerely, that a decision by the United Nations in New York would automatically, in the course of a few months, lead to a transfer of power in Cyprus from Britain to Greece, it could hardly be expected that they would be ready to come forward to discuss details of a new Constitution.
In my statement to the House on 28th July, I outlined the sort of Constitution which Her Majesty's Government had in mind as being the most appropriate under existing circumstances. I made it clear that the Constitution itself had not been worked out in any detail, and though certainly the intention was that there should be a majority of nominated and official members, I gave an undertaking to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that it would be submitted to this House before any irrevocable step was taken.
At the end of the year after the decision by the General Assembly of the United Nations was announced, the Governor once more took up the task of consultation locally with a view to ascertaining the views of those most closely concerned as to the lines on which a Constitution might be drawn up and what prospects there were of persuading the population to co-operate. I must confess right away to the hon. Lady that she is quite right in saying that although he had support from the Turkish community and from a number of individual and independent Greek Cypriots, he was not able to obtain the co-operation of either of the two main political parties, that is to say, the Nationalists or the Communist Cypriot leaders.
The Governor, has, however, persisted in his efforts. He has been over here on two occasions to consult my right hon. Friend on matters of detail and substance in connection with the proposed Constitution. Some progress has been made, but I would say to the hon. Lady that even if we had been able to reach a point at which we could lay definite proposals before the House I feel sure that it would be improper to do so

in these very last days of the present Parliament.
It would be foolish to deny that other events, notably the successful attempt to land arms and ammunition in Cyprus—which is now before the courts—and, more recently, terrorist activities, have been a further disturbing effect on the climate which has handicapped the Governor still further in his task. The broadcasts of Athens Radio have certainly acted as a further disturbing element in the situation. As regards acts of terrorism—

Mr. R. T. Paget: Are we not getting the old, old story? First, we do nothing because there is not a sufficient level of demand in the community with democratic means to express it, and then, of course, we cannot do anything because they have reverted to violence. Surely we are not going back to that? We had it over Ireland and over Egypt.

Mr. Hopkinson: I can assure the hon. and learned Member that that is a situation which we have tried to avoid. I was referring to acts of terrorism in the island. I feel sure that the whole House will wish to deplore those acts, all of us. Indeed, they have been condemned by all responsible opinion in the island itself. But I do regret that the leaders of the Church have not so far seen fit to express abhorrence at those acts, which cannot contribute to any successful conclusion of the many difficult problems involved.
I have given some reasons why the efforts of the Governor to complete his plans have been delayed. If hon. Members opposite are inclined to criticise the progress in getting on with this task of drawing up a Constitution, I would remind them of the fact that the abortive Constitution of 1948 under the Labour Government, details of which will be found in Colonial Office Paper No. 227 of that year, took over seven months to prepare and even then it was only in a skeleton form. I would also observe that in that proposed Constitution, although it was the intention of the Government of the time that the field of debate and legislation should be as wide as possible, it was specifically laid down in that document that the Constitution must provide that the legislature should not discuss the status of Cyprus within the British Commonwealth.
I do not believe that that was a sound idea. This was fully in line, nevertheless, with the statement made by the Labour Government at the time in reply to Questions on a number of occasions. On 12th March, 1947, the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who, I understand, is to speak in the debate today, said that he reminded a delegation from Cyprus of a recent statement made by the Government that no change in the status of the island was contemplated by the Government.
Again, in reply to the hon. Member for Maldon on 21st June, 1950, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), on the subject of a plebiscite organised by the Church, said:
It has repeatedly been made clear that no change in the sovereignty of the island is contemplated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1279.]
That was the view of the Opposition at that time. We should like to know here this afternoon where they stand today.

Mr. Driberg: This really is a little out-of-date. Since the view of the Labour Party has been modified officially, the right hon. Gentleman should be aware that it is now the official policy of the Labour Party that the Cypriot people should have self-determination.

Mr. Hopkinson: Naturally, I read the reports of the Scarborough Conference of the Labour Party.

Mr. Crossman: As the right hon. Gentleman is criticising—I think quite rightly criticising—the actions of the Labour Government, are we to imply that he is against the idea that there should be any limitation of the Constitution? Can he give an assurance that he is not making that limitation in the present negotiations with the Cypriots?

Mr. Hopkinson: What I said was that, in my opinion, the fact that it was done in the last Constitution was the main reason why it was never taken up at that time. Certainly, I have it very much in mind.

Mr. Crossman: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman will leave that limitation out in his negotiations? I am not considering this from a party point of view. We would all be glad to hear that he had learned from the mistakes of the Labour Government.

Mr. Hopkinson: I have told the House I cannot go into details of the Constitution this afternoon. It has not been drawn up and completed yet.

Mr. Driberg: I am sorry to interrupt once more, but the right hon. Gentleman is evading the point a little. We are not asking him to give details of the Constitution, but to tell us just this much about the decision taken last year by the Government, that the discussion of the new Constitution should not be associated in any way with a discussion of future sovereignty.

Mr. Hopkinson: I have not evaded it; I made my position perfectly clear on that point—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I felt that it was quite understood—[An HON. MEMBER: "Repeat it."] I cannot go over it again. I made it perfectly clear and, if hon. Members will read HANSARD tomorrow, they will realise that. As for the position of sovereignty—the position of no intention to transfer sovereignty—that was what I reaffirmed in the statement of 28th July. I was not contradicted by the right hon. Member for Llanelly. He only questioned me about the details of the Constitution.
It was repeated by my right hon. Friend on 28th October last. He made it clear that in asking the people of Cyprus to co-operate in this new constitution as a first step towards managing their affairs our aim and intention was to lead them on to self-government. What he did say was that he was not prepared to look into the distant future when we could not clearly see the outcome of these fresh steps to constitutional advance. That is the position today.

Mr. Crossman: There must be a time limit.

Mr. Hopkinson: As I have said, over this matter of the Constitution we have met with difficulties and with delays, but we do not despair. I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government and the Governor will continue their efforts to reach an arrangement out there which will be acceptable and, because it is acceptable, will be workable.
I should like to turn to some of the important economic and social developments which have been taking place in Cyprus in the past year. In spite of the strains on the resources of Cypriots


imposed by the disaster of the earthquake of 1953, the general picture of Cyprus is that of a buoyant and expanding economy. There have been developments both of the public services and of private industry. A very large proportion of the increased volume of imports consists of capital equipment and goods are being produced which are being used in the economic development of the country in many ways.
Everybody knows that the main features of the Cyprus economy are agriculture and mining and, of course, external trade. All those show an improvement over the past year. Cyprus has been helped by good prices and there has been a firm demand for its minerals. The decline in the world price for sulphur has stopped and copper prices are still good.
In fact, the Cyprus economy is developing rapidly and this increased activity, coupled with the flow of money which is coming as a result of the projects of the Service Departments, to which the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancas, South has referred, is likely to result in boom conditions in the island during the next few years.

Mr. Grossman: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the word "boom." Can he tell us something about the effects of inflation which is being set loose by military investment?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am coming to that. The Cypriots are enjoying these conditions of full employment and prosperity without, at present, any high degree of inflation, but the Cyprus Government are very well aware of the danger and they are wisely seeking to finance all the necessary developments of their public services from internal rather than external sources. All our reports from the Government of Cyprus show that they are very acutely alive to this particular risk.
The House is already aware of the very important proposals for port development to which reference was made at Question Time this afternoon and with which I will not deal again. This, too, will be expensive. The estimated cost is about £5 million. Although the Government of Cyprus are not committed to adopting all or any of the recommendations of the

Report, the author, Sir Eric Millbourn, has made it clear that the plans he has put forward are such as the probable economic position of the island in the future can afford and justify.

Mrs. Jeger: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether this port development is primarily for commercial purposes, for trade in Cyprus, or in connection with the base?

Mr. Hopkinson: It is primarily for commercial purposes. It has been under discussion for a long time. I have been pressed by my hon. Friends on many occasions to do something about port developments in Cyprus. It is one of the outstanding needs of the island.

Mr. Harold Davies: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are smiling about it.

Mr. Hopkinson: Apart from the proposed port development, about £7½ million have already been spent in the current development plan on a number of projects including hospitals, medical services, rural water supplies, civil aviation, agriculture, education, and forestry development and a smaller sum, £675,000, on port development up to now. There is no doubt that, given a period of tranquillity, the people of Cyprus can look forward confidently to a time of unequalled prosperity.
In the same way, action is being taken over the whole field of social services. There is legislation for a social insurance scheme, for factories and women's employment, a children's Bill, improvement in the health service, to which I have already referred. All these things are going ahead, except for the social insurance scheme which, as the House has already been told, has been held up, because it was thought that it would be better for it to be discussed and settled by an assembly containing elected representatives of the people. Of course, as I made clear in reply to a Question on 15th December, if the Constitution is unduly held up we shall have to consider going ahead with that scheme on its own.
The prospects for Cyprus are good and now everything depends on our success in convincing the people of Cyprus of all races and parties that it is really not in their interest to allow themselves to be mesmerised by political aims which are


unrealistic and in persuading them to concentrate on the immediate, practical, political and economic possibilities. While Her Majesty's Government fully understand and recognise the emotional attraction of many Greek Cypriots towards Greece, they adhere to their view that British control in Cyprus must be maintained unimpaired during this period of world tension.
They do not intend to be deflected by a campaign of violence from their object of bringing the island peacefully to a state of full internal self-government with provision for continuing defence needs and for the rights, security and welfare of all law-abiding inhabitants of the island, without distinction of race or creed.

Mr. Davies: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured truthfully to give the House the position as he sees it. But does he not realise that if this country, in certain circumstances, underestimates emotional motives, we may lose material? Are we not in danger of making exactly the same mistake in Cyprus—perhaps a worse one—as we made in Malaya, over Singapore? The place will be useless. When he denigrates emotional motive, will he remember that at one time Napoleon's armies swept across Europe on emotion only?

Mr. Hopkinson: I do not quite know how one can denigrate emotional motives, but certainly I hope that I have made it clear that we understand the emotional feelings of the Greek Cypriots.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I am sure that the whole House will want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) on the very admirable way in which she initiated this debate, on the first occasion that she has addressed the House officially for the Opposition. The way she put forward her most moving plea on behalf of the people of Cyprus could hardly have been bettered. Those of us who follow on this side can complain only that she deployed her arguments so comprehensively that there is little left for us to do but to repeat them.
On this side of the House, we have been all bitterly disappointed, although

perhaps not altogether surprised, by the reply of the right hon. Gentleman. In the course of his speech, having evaded two interruptions from my hon. Friends, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said that his position in this matter had been made perfectly clear. I agree. It has. It would be well to remember what he said and what was the last definite utterance on this matter by the Government. He said, "I have said that the question of the abrogation of British sovereignty cannot arise; that British sovereignty will remain." Unless his right hon. Friend has something different to say in winding up the debate, we must take it that that remains the official policy of the Conservative Party towards Cyprus.

Mr. Crossman: If I heard the Minister correctly, he said it would have to remain during this period of world tension. Is that a modification of the "never" of Lord Chandos? If so, he may tell us that he is slowly climbing down.

Mr. Robinson: I agree that that is a possible interpretation, but we may have elucidation at the end of the debate.

Mr. Hopkinson: If the hon. Member reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, he will see precisely what I said.

Mr. Robinson: I had a certain hesitation in entering the debate, because, unlike almost every other hon. Member who is seeking to catch your eye, Sir, I have never had the pleasure and privilege of visiting this beautiful, if somewhat unhappy island. However, I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South the representation in this House of the overwhelming majority of Cypriots in this country. I believe that we have about half each. I learn from them and from their friends and relatives who come here to visit them that the demand of the Greek Cypriots for Enosis is real, is sincere, is pressing and that it represents the earnest desire of the great majority of the Greek Cypriots.
If I may venture a personal view, I very much doubt whether the Cypriots will derive any great social, or economic benefits from such a union with Greece, either under its present Government, or under any future Greek Government that we can foresee. The Cypriots would, I think, stand to gain more in that respect from


complete self-government and independence within the British Commonwealth, if that could be attained.
However, we are not dealing with social and economic factors in this problem; we are dealing with deeply-felt issues of freedom and self-determination. Those are two principles to which I subscribe even when it is perhaps inconvenient to do so. There is no doubt that the Cypriots feel that they are Greek. They feel that as part of Greece they would at least divest themselves of the colonial status which as a proud people with ancient traditions and cultures they naturally resent.
We might remember that the circumstances in which this island acquired British colonial status more than 75 years ago were somewhat odd. A few days ago we heard in the House the Chancellor of the Exchequer telling us how profoundly he was influenced in framing his Budget this year by the baleful eyes of Mr. Gladstone's portrait staring down at him from the walls of No. 11, Downing Street. It is a great pity that the Colonial Secretary and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs are not subject to the same, on the whole, beneficent influence.
I should like to quote what Mr. Gladstone said about the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878, by which Cyprus was ceded to Britain as part of Disraeli's so-called "Peace with Honour." He described the Convention as "insane—an act of duplicity not surpassed and rarely equalled in the history of nations." A few months later, in a great speech in Glasgow, he described it as "a gross and manifest breach of the public law of Europe." Three years after that, when he was himself Prime Minister, Gladstone was most anxious to cede Cyprus to Greece and was reluctantly dissuaded from doing so, I understand, by the strength of jingoist public opinion.

Mr. Crossman: Tory back benchers.

Mr. Robinson: No doubt Tory back benchers played their part.
In the 75 years that followed it cannot be said that our record in Cyprus as the colonial Power has been an especially happy one. I do not think that Cyprus forms the most successful chapter in the history of our Colonial Empire. Of course, as the Minister of State for

Colonial Affairs said, we have sponsored certain schemes of economic development which have brought incidental economic benefits to some sections of the population of Cyprus; but, at the same time, there has been a good deal of curtailment of civil liberty throughout the period. This demand for Enosis has been there all the time, sometimes fairly quiescent. at other times flaring up, and in recent years the demand has become constant and clamant.
What is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? It is the attitude of the ostrich. They pretend that it is not a popular demand, that it is merely a noisy agitation on the part of a small minority led by Communists, now described in terms of the favourite Foreign Office cliché as "Communist terrorists," and by a few leaders of the Greek Orthodox Church.
The fact is that every political figure in Cyprus of any standing or status is in favour of Enosis. Could this really be the case if it were merely the wish of a small minority? Of course, Her Majesty's Government could find out what the facts are if they really wanted to know, by a referendum, but they have constantly refused to have anything to do with the suggestions for plebiscites which have been put forward from time to time. If they believe that this is a minority view, this is their opportunity to prove their contention; but they will refuse to take it. The result inevitably is deadlock.
The Government want to introduce a new Constitution. At the same time, they frustrate every chance of discussion about it with responsible leaders of Cypriot opinion by refusing even to consider as a future possibility, or even to discuss, the one thing that the people of Cyprus have set their hearts on. The result is that they have recklessly inflamed Nationalist and Conservative opinion as well as Communist opinion in Cyprus by the use of such words as "never," "in no circumstances," and "not to be contemplated," when referring to any possible change of sovereignty. As I said in a supplementary question a day or two ago, in my view this does far more to create unrest in Cyprus than any of the rather foolish and ineffective broadcasts on Athens Radio.
I believe that, ultimately, we shall have to concede to the people of Cyprus not


only self-Government but also the right of self-determination. Cannot we do this by negotiation? Are we to wait until there are signs that the patience of the people of Cyprus is beginning to get strained? There are already signs that these people, who are normally friendly, easy-going and kindly disposed towards the British, are getting a little tired of the shilly-shallying of Her Majesty's Government. They are obviously desperately anxious not to be forced to resort to violence. What folly it would be if the intransigence and the short-sightedness of Her Majesty's Government should force a situation which all parties concerned will genuinely regret.
I was reading recently the memoirs of a man who used to be an hon. Member of this House, and I came across these wise words:
It would be interesting to collect historical instances of harm that has been done by the reluctance of men to accept readily what they know they will have to accept in the end.
Those are the words of a Tory of Tories, the late Viscount Norwich. They seem to me extremely apposite to the current situation in Cyprus. Let us hope that the next British Government will take a less stiff-necked and obstinate attitude towards this problem and that they will consent to discuss it in a spirit of good will in order to discover a course of action which will commend itself to both sides.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Richard Wood: I feel a little diffident about entering the debate, because I have spent only 90 minutes longer in the Island of Cyprus than the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). Further, I feel diffident as a result of having read my horoscope in Monday's "Daily Mirror," which told me that progress would be good when I stick to the familiar, but said:
Do not venture out of your depth.
I feel further deterred by the desire not to say anything which might make more difficult an already delicate situation. I have been much impressed already by the moderate tone not only of the speech by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs but of the speeches by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) and the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North.
I have thought a great deal about this problem since I was last in Greece, when I remember being very much depressed by the apparent seeping away of the immense fund of good will, friendship, and I think I can also say affection, which used to bind together the peoples of Greece and Britain. The decision of Greece to appeal to the United Nations last year; the intemperate language which has been used about this question, and, above all, the abominable broadcasts from Athens—I do not think one can use any other word to describe them—of the last two months must have brought infinite sadness to everyone who values the friendship between Greece and ourselves.
I cannot believe that the question of Enosis can appear as one easy of solution to any moderate opinion in Greece. After all, the Greeks know rather more than we do about the difficult Turkish problem. They are conscious of the strategic difficulties about which hon. Members have already spoken, and they are conscious also of a very large Communist minority in the island.
In the past months and years too many doors seem to have been slammed in our handling of this problem. Above all—and I say this having thought about it a great deal—many of us seem to have pretended, or acted as though we felt that no question of Enosis even existed, I do not believe it possible for Greece or Cyprus to expect that threats and violence and bloodshed will deflect us from doing what we honestly believe to be right.
I beg my right hon. Friend, who in a few weeks' time will, I hope, again be responsible for our colonial affairs, to consider taking the initiative in breaking down the deadlock and stalemate regarding this question. I ask my right hon. Friend seriously to reconsider in detail the steps by which the people of Cyprus might advance to full responsibility for their domestic affairs; to fix a date—and this I believe to be profoundly important—on which we and representatives of the Cypriot legislature may meet seriously to discuss the ways in which their then Constitution fails to meet their national hopes and desires for national stability.
I have presumed to make these suggestions because I feel most deeply distressed by the present position. I am convinced that it is only by such an act of faith


on behalf of the Government of this country that we can possibly transform the present situation of hopelessness, bitterness and frustration into one which would be not only of benefit to ourselves, but also to the people of Cyprus, for whom we are responsible.

5.4 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I wish to discuss mainly the strategic question, but before doing so may I say that it seems to me there are some propositions here which are not open to argument? One of them is that it has been, it is, and it will be, to the economic advantage of the people of Cyprus to stay within the British Empire. It is equally clear that it may well be to the social advantage of minorities to remain within the British Empire. I think it equally clear and past demonstration that one reaches a point at which it is not wise, expedient or possible to do people good against their clearly expressed will, and that is the situation which we are up against in Cyprus.
It has been made abundantly clear that the overwhelming will of the Greek majority in Cyprus is that they should return to the Greek nation to which they claim to belong. That is not because they think that they would be better off, or because they think that they would enjoy more freedom. It is demanded by Communists who, in a good many instances, know perfectly well that they would be in gaol under a Greek Government, or even executed.
Yet, irrational as it may be, this emotion exists within Cyprus. It is not for prosperity, but because they want to feel they are the sons of Achilles, the pupils and heirs of Aristotle and Plato, and fellow citizens of Pericles. It is an idea of emotion. One might call it a religion. It has nothing to do with material things, and it cannot be answered by a material solution. What, then, is the point of proposing a Constitution which would meet any reasonable demand or aspiration, when the whole basis of this aspiration is irrational and emotional? It is, from the beginning, an utterly futile exercise.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs ended his speech by saying that so long as the tension in the world remains, we shall insist upon maintaining our position in Cyprus, and that we shall

not be deterred by acts of violence. Let us reflect how often and to how many people that has been said. And has it ever been taken other than as a challenge to violence? Here is the whole problem.
We are at the beginning of what may again be a tragic chapter in our history. It is no use saying we do not submit to violence, because at a point, we do; and that point is steadily built up in greater bitterness. The time comes when we do submit to the will of a population prepared to be violent and then we do it on the worst terms for them and for ourselves. Do not let us do that again here. And in any case, do not let us do it for an imaginary strategic advantage which, if not antediluvian, is certainly ante-atomic.
In this atomic age, I cannot conceive of what military advantage Cyprus can be to us. Let us try to understand what is a base. I remember, when we were discussing the matter in another context, the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester, South-East (Captain Water-house) told us, "You want a base where you are going to use your troops." Of course, that is precisely opposite to the truth.
The whole point of a base is that it is somewhere where it is not proposed to use troops. If it is necessary to use troops at a base, then the base becomes a commitment and not a point of manoeuvre giving additional mobility. Any base which holds down troops needed to defend it has lost its function as a base, because it ceases to be a point from which can be obtained added mobility in the sphere of manoeuvre. Therefore, to try to make a base where it is necessary to hold a position against a hostile population is, in my submission, an act of strategic insanity.
Further, in what sort of a war do we contemplate using this depository of troops? In point of fact, it will not be a base; it will be a garrison and a commitment. But in what sort of a war do we pretend that we shall draw troops from this garrison to use in what sort of an area? I should have thought that it was plainly obvious that it could not be in an atomic war, because anywhere more atomically vulnerable than the Cyprus base would be hard to imagine.
As I understand it, a command post occupying about 4,000 men, not one of whom will fight, is being built there. What is the point of such a command post, which in any case will be across the sea, in Cyprus? Such a command post ought to be a long way below the earth in any case. But if it is to be across the sea at all, might it not just as well be in London or in Paris as in Cyprus? When controlling by wireless it makes little difference if one's distance is rather longer or shorter.
But perhaps it is not to be used in an atomic war. Have hon. Members opposite in mind the sort of intervention in which the Tory Government were tempted to indulge in Persia—incidentally blaming us for not doing so? If they think they will go into Iran or make small interventions and little Tory wars in the Middle East, it would, in the first place, be better if Cyprus were not there—to keep them out of temptation, if for nothing else. But in point of fact even then it would be useless.
If we were to deal with that sort of situation we should deal with it today by means of an airlift—and we could work our airlift from here. It may be that there would be a certain number of ferrying operations, in which case there is perhaps some advantage in shorter distances, but with our limited aerodrome and airfield accommodation in Cyprus, compared with our unlimited airfield accommodation here, the greater facilities here would make the sheer operation of movement from here to the Middle East as fast as, and probably faster than, the same operation—to the Middle East—with the limited facilities in Cyprus.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: Let us imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman has to intervene in Israel under the Tripartite Declaration in order to protect Israel against an attack from the neighbouring Arab countries. By the terms of our Treaties with the Arab countries, we should not have the use of airfields in Jordan, Iraq and elsewhere in the area. Cyprus is perfectly positioned to enable us to bring quick and effective support to the Israelis with whom, under those circumstances, we should be allied.

Mr. Paget: Equally, the ports of Israel are available to us. I have sufficient confidence in the Israeli Army to know that it can hold the perimeter in the meantime. I believe that with an airlift and a naval lift we can fulfil our obligations to Israel.
If the hon. Member will consult the Israelis he will find that they would be only too happy to give us a base there if we wanted it for the purpose of meeting our obligations. We can have that tomorrow if we want it. It would give them a great sense of security. We should be going where we were invited, not where we should have to fight for our lives against a hostile population, and there would be no sea communications between us. If we want a base, there is one offered to us, and in the place where we want it.

Mr. Driberg: In any case, whether it is desirable or not, have not the Greek Government, and for that matter the Archbishop of Cyprus, made it perfectly clear that bases could be negotiated in Cyprus, after Enosis, as between allies?

Mr. Paget: Yes, they have offered not only bases in Cyprus but bases in Crete and the Peloponnese.

Mr. Nicolson: But the hon. and learned Gentleman is arguing that it is ridiculous to have a base of any sort in Cyprus.

Mr. Paget: I am only pointing out that we have the choice if we want a base, but from a strategic point of view this whole idea of bases, even in friendly countries, let alone where they have to be defended by garrisons, is in my view quite obsolete in an atomic age.

Mr. Nicolson: What about Haifa?

Mr. Paget: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I think the idea of wanting a base here at all is quite obsolete, but if we do want a base we have a whole series of choices open and available to us without choosing a base which would have to be defended against a hostile population, gradually absorbing not only the base troops but also the Reserves into a sniping war against a hostile population who, through their friends in the other islands, gained a great deal of experience and knowledge during the war—largely taught by ourselves—of how to conduct a guerilla war.
I therefore urge the Government to recede from this folly. They should call the Turks and the Greeks, now our Allies, into conference and say, "We want to provide something here which will satisfy you, the Greeks, and you, the Turks, first, from the security point of view and from the point of view of the protection which you require from us and of our cooperation with N.A.T.O. as Allies; and, secondly, from the point of view of satisfying the people of Cyprus in their national aspirations." Let this be worked out by the Greek and Turkish Governments in conjunction with ourselves. There is a Turkish minority. in Cyprus and the Turks, therefore, have an interest in the problem. They are a highly practical people, and they, too, want a defence organisation, within which Greece is highly important.
With such a policy we should be doing something constructive. We should not then be the people who were standing in the way of Enosis but should be moving towards practical and reasonable negotiations. We should not just be stubbornly putting our heads down and making every patriot say, "This is a position from which they can be moved only by violence." That is what I am so frightened of, because that is what every patriot in Cyprus is saying today.
For goodness sake, bring the Turks in, if hon. Members like, and, if they wish, let the negotiations drag on for a bit. Work it out together, negotiating here with two good Allies—the Greeks and the Turks. Do not put up the sort of challenge which we have had today, which will act as a direct incitement to violence.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the views which he is now propounding were put to his right hon. Friends when they formed the Government of this country? If so, what was the answer?

Mr. Paget: I will give the answer to that question very simply, as will, I think, my earlier remarks. Atom warfare had not then reached the stage which it has reached today. The security of this area was then best served by our being in Cyprus. I think the economy of Cyprus was best served by our being there. I

think the social peace of Cyprus was best served by our being there. I think there were all these reasons for being there.
The only reason which emerges against our being there is this steadily developing feeling—the complete will of the people that we should go. That has emerged only by degrees. We have sought to work with it but we have failed to do so; we have sought to establish a constitution and we have failed to do so. We have reached the point where we can stay there only at the risk of a civil war—that is what it amounts to—and at that point we should go.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. C. E. Mott-Radclyffe: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the strategic part of his speech, because I was a little confused by his argument. I have a feeling that he is convinced that with the advent of the atomic or hydrogen age no base is of any value, whether it be in the Middle East or in any other part of the globe.
I think that the House is very grateful to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger), who instigated this debate, for the very moderate tone which she set. It is easy enough to excite emotions when one is not responsible for the result of doing so. That may account for a certain change, on the part of some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, from the view which they took when they occupied the Government benches.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) will explain to the House why the reasons for the exclusion from the 1948 constitutional offer of any question of sovereignty—which seemed very good to his colleagues when they were in power—should have so little validity now that they are advocating another form of constitution which would not exclude the question of sovereignty. I want to deal with the question of discussing with the Greeks the subject of a change of sovereignty. I do not see how any Government—whether it be Conservative or Labour—can admit the right of a third Power, however friendly it may be—and I emphasise the word "right"—to enter into discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the future of a Crown Colony.
Once we admit that right as a principle we cannot tell where it will end. If we admitted the right of the Greeks to enter into discussions with Her Majesty's Government about the future of Cyprus we should have to discuss the future of Hong Kong with China; the future of Gibraltar with Spain, and the future of British Honduras with Guatemala. Ever since the institution of the United Nations, British Governments representing both parties have persistently—and in my opinion quite rightly—taken the view that it was not within the competence of the United Nations to discuss questions of colonial policy which come purely within the field of domestic politics of the colonial Power concerned.
The question of Cyprus is complicated by the fact that there is not only a third friendly Power but a fourth, namely, Turkey. The Greeks say that Enosis means that Cyprus shall return to Greece, and that they will accept nothing less; but the Turks are taking a very uncompromising line in that connection. They say that if there is any question of a change of sovereignty, Turkey must have Cyprus back. If any hon. or right hon. Gentleman opposite thinks that it will be easy to reconcile those two views he had better try to enter into discussions with the Greeks and the Turks upon the subject.

Mr. Crossman: Nobody is saying that this question is very easy; we merely suggest that because it is difficult we might start dealing with it.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wakefield will tell us what sort of negotiations his Government entered into upon this subject, either with the Greeks or the Turks, and what sort of answers they got in 1948—and also what he proposes to do in the unlikely event of his finding himself upon the Treasury Bench after the next Election.
There is a rather curious historical parallel, because when the then Sultan of Turkey assigned to Britain the occupation and administration of Cyprus in 1878, it was for the purpose of enabling Britain to assist in what was, broadly speaking, collective defence against Russia. Today, in spite of what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton says, Cyprus occupies an extremely

important strategic position for N.A.T.O. in the Eastern Mediterranean. Although the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South and various other hon. and right hon. Members opposite have consistently talked about Cyprus as a base, it is not so much a base as a headquarters. But it is in an extremely important strategic position, and, other considerations apart, I cannot imagine a worse moment than the present, when N.A.T.O. is being built up, for us to become involved in a discussion about the sovereignty in Cyprus. If we did so become involved we should have violent trouble between the Greeks and the Turks; we should throw a wrench into the whole machinery of N.A.T.O., and almost certainly cause great damage to the Balkan Pact.

Mr. John Strachey: I am sure that the hon. Member does not think that the bases in Cyprus today are N.A.T.O. bases. They are not; they are British bases. It is our view that it might well be better if they were N.A.T.O. bases, but the hon. Gentleman is arguing as if they were already N.A.T.O. bases.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I shall come to that argument presently. It is true that they are British bases, but Cyprus is an essential strategic part of the general rô le which Britain plays, within N.A.T.O., in the defence of the Eastern Mediterranean. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) would dissociate himself from that view, or from the view that the Americans attach great importance to the strategic position of Cyprus.
I now turn to the other suggestion that bases in Cyprus could be leased to N.A.T.O. by treaty. I do not see how N.A.T.O. could undertake any treaty obligations, but I should have thought that, in this very quickly changing world, unquestioned sovereignty—which we have in Cyprus—is worth a great deal more than any treaty. Hon. Members know that, most unfortunately, treaties are not always regarded as being sacrosanct, however friendly may be the Governments with whom they are concluded. Governments come and Governments go. The surrendering of sovereignty in exchange for a treaty does not provide greater security. Moreover, in surrendering sovereignty for a treaty in this case,


although we should get the good will of the Greeks, we should incur the unquestioned animosity of the Turks.
Another suggestion is that there should be an immediate plebiscite. That is one of the most frequently and popularly canvassed solutions. I am not awfully keen upon plebiscites of the sort which are likely to occur in Cyprus at the moment. Plebiscites are funny things.

Mr. Crossman: They may go against one.

Dr. H. Morgan: They may also go in one's favour.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: They are sometimes conducted by very curious methods.
I do not believe that it would be possible to conduct a plebiscite in Cyprus at the moment upon the assumption that the votes cast were completely free from undesirable influence. The Church held a plebiscite in Cyprus in 1951 or 1952, and the result was a vote of 98 per cent. in favour of Enosis. It is fairly easy to get that kind of result if the priest says to his flock, "Unless you vote for union with Greece, when you die you will not be buried, and when your children are born they will not be baptised." That is one way of arriving at a vote of 98 per cent. in a plebiscite, but I do not think that is the way in which we would wish to see any plebiscite conducted in any of our Crown Colonies.
I would remind the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that when the question of a plebiscite was suggested, I think to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies, he, no doubt for exactly the same reasons as I am giving, turned it down as being impracticable and probably, in effect, unfair.
I think that it is a little ironic and rather sad that a great Church like the Orthodox Church in Cyprus should descend to those sorts of methods in conducting a plebiscite when many of then-follow priests in the Russian Orthodox Church are being subjected to another kind of violent persecution behind the Iron Curtain.
What is even more distressing is the general tone of the broadcasts from Radio Athens. I do not want to detain the

House for more than a few minutes, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but when one reads one or two of the broadcasts one might well wonder where they come from. There was a broadcast on 24th April in the Cypriot students' programme. I will read only a few sentences from it.
The English accuse the Germans because during the Second World War they had maltreated prisoners, yet they themselves are not at all better than the Germans in this respect, as it can be proved by the methods they use in Cyprus in order to obtain confessions from those submitted to torture.… According to information received from Cyprus the colonial jailers of the Island used tortures of every kind against the Cypriot fighters whom they arrest and imprison.
Supposing one had been marooned on a desert island for 10 years and had been completely out of touch with all news, or supposing that there had been a 10-year newspaper or radio strike and no one knew what was going on, and one suddenly came back from the desert island and turned on Radio Athens and heard that sort of broadcast, I think one would say to oneself, "Good heavens, what has happened; Athens must be behind the Iron Curtain." That is the only comment I can make on this disgraceful propaganda which is being put across by Radio Athens.
I think it is time that we started to ask what is being done to counteract these broadcasts from Radio Athens. We should be unwise to assume that it has a great deal of effect, but it has some effect.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether it would not be helpful if we spent a little more money on the Overseas Service of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: No doubt it would, but I think that so far as Radio Cyprus is concerned it would come in the Colonial Office Vote. That was one question which I was going to ask. I do not know whether the Secretary of State, when he replies, can tell us what steps are being taken to counteract this flood of propaganda and to tell the Cypriots what Enosis really means.

Mr. Strachey: They know what it means.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I wonder whether all Cypriots who wave flags and shout


"Enosis" and all the rest of it really know that if Enosis were to come about it would mean the loss of British passports, their transfer from the sterling area, and a liability to call up in the Greek armed forces.
The hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South quite rightly paid tribute to the valour of the Cypriot volunteers who fought for the Allies in the last war. I join with her in paying tribute to them; but did their passionate patriotism and longing for union with Greece go so far that many of them volunteered to fight for the Greek Government against the Communists in the guerrilla war from 1946 to 1948? May be it did, but I have never heard so. If they did, that, of course, would be genuine proof of a blood relationship with Greece which all of them wish to share.
Like the Minister of State I find this quarrel with Greece most distressing. I know the great worth and valour of the Greeks, and I love them. I love their country, I love the people, and I love the scenery. I have the greatest admiration for all their traditions and all their culture. I remember very well indeed how, during the retreat from Greece in the spring of 1941, all the Greek peasants came and threw flowers at us and gave us what little they had to eat and drink. They crowded down to the beaches when they might well have accused us of abandoning them. The local inhabitants of certain other countries would have given us neither flowers, food nor drink, but rude epithets and jeers instead.
We all know the old friendship between Britain and Greece which up to now has lasted through all sorts of different circumstances in days good and bad. What I find so distressing and difficult to understand is how the Greek Government can so misjudge the British people in thinking that Her Majesty's Government or any subsequent Government could be deflected or stampeded away from a course of action which they thought to be right in the interests of Britain, in the interests of Cyprus, in the interests of Turkey, in the interests of Greece, and in the interests of the whole of the defence of the Eastern Mediterranean, merely by the threat of a certain amount of sabotage and some rather abusive propaganda on Athens Radio.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: I feel that when the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) is read in Cyprus even the British officials will feel deeply depressed at its complete remoteness from reality. The Minister referred to the debate of last August. I would say that in the months that have intervened the situation in Cyprus has got steadily worse, and a great deal worse in the last four months.
We are faced now with the beginning of violence, and the first thing which I should like to do is to join with the Minister in deprecating violence in Cyprus. However, I must add that the chief incitement to violence in Athens is not Athens Radio. The chief incitements to violence in Cyprus are the speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers.
I went to Cyprus last January, after passing through Palestine and Egypt. In Palestine I saw the remains of Army camps on which we had spent £5 million before we were thrown out, and in Egypt I saw the remains of a £500 million base from which we had been thrown out. On arriving in Cyprus I was told by a British General, "We are on British soil and we can stay there for ever." Is it not ironical that we should have been twice thrown out of countries that did not belong to us and should have finally decided to take refuge on a small island, believing that we could hold a position which we have no right whatever morally to hold?
The Minister of State clearly indicated that so far as meeting the demands of the Cypriot Greeks is concerned—good tempered and likeable people as they are—nothing could be done for them whatsoever. British officials there said to me, "They do not really mean what they say. If they did, they would do the same as the Jews and the Egyptians." That is a direct incitement to violence, and I repeat that that is what the Minister of State did in his speech today.
I want to make some observations on it. It seemed a bit better than his last speech on the subject, but there was incitement to violence in the sense that he was saying that we cannot give way, that in the last 12 months since we had been a little more awkward they had given way a little, and that if we were to hot it up a little more there would be


a few more pieces of appeasement on their side.
I discussed with generals in Cyprus the strategic problems which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has raised. They told me that Cyprus was a British base. They did not even know anything about N.A.T.O. in Cyprus. They carefully did not know anything about N.A.T.O., because Cyprus was to be exclusively British. When I suggested to them that it was part of the Mediterranean strategy, that it might help to have the Greeks and Turks joining with us and joining our staff in Cyprus, I was told, "That is not the idea at all. This is to be a really British base."
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is no exclusively British strategy in the Middle East today. There can be only the N.A.T.O. strategy. It would seem to be the first step in statesmanship to go to the Greeks and the Turks and say, "If there are to be any military dispositions in this part of the world, we want to make them jointly with you."
What do we actually do? We build a £3 million hospital in Cyprus and expressly deny that any Cypriot may go into it at all. It will be reserved for the use of British troops in the next war, after Cyprus has been blown to pieces by atom bombs. That is not very attractive to the Cypriots. They see the biggest hospital ever built in Cyprus built exclusively for British troops.
We are spending £10 million on an aerodrome which is well advertised as one from which H-bombers will go to Russia. That is not a great attraction towards the British connection, since the presence of an H-bomber aerodrome means an H-bomb retaliation. One extra reason why in the last year the opposition to the British possession of Cyprus has increased has been our disposition to use the island for our strategic purposes without any consultation with the population whatsoever.
I suggest to the Colonial Secretary that he should realise that the situation has been transformed. For seventy years the Cypriots got no real answer from the Greek Government at all to their request

for Enosis, and it could have been considered a private affair at one time. No one took it very seriously, but now the situation has been completely transformed by the Greek Government, because from whatever motives—and I am not going to say that they were pure, because Greek Governments consider elections sometimes as well as the Tory Government—the Greek Government have now espoused the cause of Enosis and have got the radio station at Athens at work, which, I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor, puts out the most outrageous nonsense.
However, when the hon. Gentleman talks about it seeming as though Athens were behind the Iron Curtain, he raises delicate considerations, because Cyprus is a police State today. The population of Cyprus is denied any form of representation, and is ruled by foreigners and taxed by foreigners and exploited by foreigners, and the last thing to refer to in connection with Cyprus is the Iron Curtain, because there is a piece of Iron Curtain within the British Empire, and that is not very creditable to us.
I do not defend Athens Radio, but I do say that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, now that the Greek Government have formally espoused the cause of Enosis, which is a subject which also attracts the attention of the Turkish Government, must cease to talk of the problem as though it were a colonial problem, and cease to treat it as though it were a colonial problem, because it has become an international problem of the greatest importance for our military dispositions in the Mediterranean and for our good relations with our Allies. I hope that the next time we debate this subject we shall have the Foreign Secretary here, for he is the Secretary of State responsible for international matters, and the Colonial Secretary is no longer able, in his position, to deal with the major problems of Cyprus.
The problem of Trieste was solved in London by private conversations between the Yugoslav and Italian Ambassadors here and our Government. The conversations went on for months. Great patience was shown by the Government. Many of us thought that the problem of Trieste was insoluble, but it was solved by really pertinacious negotiations. I believe that the Cyprus problem would at this stage


be easier to solve even than the Trieste problem because nobody has taken up yet an absolutely firm position from which he cannot withdraw. Everybody is still open to discussing it, and everybody concerned has good will.
The real obstacle to a solution is the British Government, who say that if we discuss the problem at all we thereby give away what we do not want to give away to the Greeks and the Turks. I beg the Colonial Secretary at least to admit the desirability of discussions between the British Foreign Secretary and the Greek and Turkish Ambassadors here. To that extent the matter should be taken out of the hands of the Colonial Secretary.
It is, of course, precisely the colonial status of this European people which is most infuriating to them. It is the fact that they are being dealt with as though their land were a Crown Colony. They feel themselves to be Greek and that they belong to Greece just as much as any other Greek island. It is the fact that we do not recognise that claim as being worthy of negotiation that is in itself an incitement to violence.
When I was in Cyprus I certainly went there with the idea that we must try to get a Constitution. Owing to the fact that we have had in Cyprus no free democratic Constitution, there is only one political organisation today, and that is the Communist Party, and there is a danger that if we summon a Constitution it will be dominated by the Communist Party of Cyprus, because the rest of the Cypriots are not organised in any political parties at all but organised only by the Ethnarchy, a survival of the Middle Ages, an interesting museum piece, but one which I cannot regard as a formidable opponent to the extremely well led and ably organised Communist Party of Cyprus. We are in this very embarrassing position as the result of the policies of successive Governments of having denied Cyprus any form of democratic education. Thereby, we have enabled the Communists to get a virtual monopoly of political organisation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Whether or not the Constitution would be dominated by the Communists depends on what sort of Constitution it is. Were it entirely an elective Constitution that might be so, but if there were

a diarchy the Constitution would not be adversely affected by the Communists.

Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the suggestion of the noble Lord would go through. I do not see how we could expect the Cypriots not to have a democracy with normal general elections.
However, there is something really much more important than that. There is an illusion amongst the best civil servants in Cyprus that if we gave the people of Cyprus a chance, if we gave them a Constitution under which they could see the advantages of British rule, at the end they would opt for Britain and the Commonwealth. That seems to me to be a profound illusion. It is the illusion of people who are liberal-minded, but simply do not understand the intensive compulsion of nationalism in the modern world.
It does not matter how much we do for them, it does not matter what economic advantage we give them. Like the Irish, like the Jews, like the Egyptians, like the Indians, they say that they want to manage for themselves. It does not matter whether they have as many drains or as good lavatories as we could provide for them. They want to manage their own affairs, and they Want their island for themselves. So I warn the Government not to have any illusion about that.
There is the problem of the Turkish minority. I am the last person to underestimate the importance of that minority. The Turkish Government have had a Press campaign for months in Turkey, which has made this issue in Turkey as important as it is in Greece. It is becoming of the gravest international importance. The rights of that minority have to be looked after. Therefore, the Government ought not to listen to their back benchers and say that there is no urgency, that the matter can be held over and that we can wait for two or three years. Every year we wait may mean missing the chance of a friendly negotiated agreement. There is a chance today. Let us hope that the Government's last act before we return a Labour Government which will do something will be to show the Tory Colonial Secretary willing at last to go as far as that and to say, "Yes, we agree; we will negotiate with our friends in Greece and Turkey."

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) on two things. First, I agree that this is a matter of urgency. Secondly, I agree that it is something which concerns the Foreign Office as much as the Colonial Office. I am sure that it will not have escaped him that it was the Foreign Office, in the person of the present Minister of Defence, who made our case at the United Nations.
I had one regret at that time, and I expressed it publicly. It seemed to me that the submission of the Enosis case to the United Nations provided an opportunity which we ought not to have missed to make our case before the world. I thought it was a pity that we should have answered solely with the argument that it would create a precedent for the submission of all sorts of colonial and irredentist claims. I thought we should have put it to world opinion that we had a historical, legal and moral right to be in Cyprus and to stay there.
However, the debate showed me that perhaps I was wrong. The opinions of the deputies gathered together in New York veered very markedly indeed towards our side during the debate, and, in the end, we were supported by the votes of 50 nations compared with eight abstentions and no votes against us at all. It was at that stage that my own feelings began to come round very much more to the official Government view. Previously, I had been one of the few in my party who thought that we were making a slight mistake by being a little too unsympathetic. I take this opportunity now to say that I think I was wrong, and that I believe that the attitude taken by Her Majesty's Government has been perfectly correct.
I want to say one or two words about the strategic aspects, and, in particular, to answer the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who put forward the case that Cyprus was a ridiculous place in which to establish a base, first, because it was subject to atomic bombardment, and, secondly, because any British liabilities in that corner of the world could equally well be carried out from bases in England. That is a strange argument. I do not understand how he can claim that a base in Cyprus is unusable because it is subject to

hydrogen bomb attack, but that a base at Aldershot is quite suitable, presumably because it is not so subject. Both are, of course, equally vulnerable. The hon. and learned Member may take the view that no bases anywhere are of any use, in which case I do not see how one can have an Army, a Navy or an Air Force. However, if the hon. and learned Member takes a logical line, he surely must admit that a base in that corner of the world is valuable because it is close to areas which we may have to defend in a hurry.
I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman the example of Israel. He offered me Haifa. I wish he had been sitting with me a fortnight ago on the Jordanian slopes, overlooking Haifa. I was counting the ships in the harbour, so close was I to the harbour. At that point the Israeli strip between Jordan and the sea is 12 miles wide, and it could be cut in half an hour. What use would Haifa be? How could we help our friends if we did not have a base near enough to give them immediate support and yet far enough away to be safe from a similar overrunning? In that one instance, Cyprus is the perfect base. If we had to invent a base and redraw the map of the world, we should draw in Cyprus and establish our air bases there to meet this commitment.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman is arguing purely from the point of view of a base, does he rule out the possibility that if Enosis were granted arrangements would be possible with a friendly Greek Government for the establishment of bases over a wider area for mutual defence?

Mr. Nicolson: I am just coming to that. The hon. Member for Coventry, East remarked that it is not very attractive to the Cypriots to be told that we are going to establish airfields in their country from which H-bombers can take off. Would it be any more attractive if the airfields were under Greek supervision?

Mr. Crossman: The answer that the hon. Gentleman wants is "Yes." If one is a member of a free nation and has the right to invite somebody to one's country, that is one thing. If one is treated as a Crown Colony and has something imposed on one and one has no liberties, one feels slightly differently about it.

Mr. Nicolson: Whether it is a Crown Colony or a province of Greece, an H-bomb falling upon an airfield in the middle of a small country has precisely the same effect, that of obliteration.

Mr. Paget: Surely it all depends upon what one is ready to die for. One is prepared to die for one's country, but one is not prepared to die for somebody else's.

Mr. Nicolson: It will not have escaped the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am sure, that both Great Britain and Greece are members of the some alliance, which is guarding against the same enemy. We are both members of N.A.T.O., and Russia is our common enemy. The airfields, whosever they are, will have precisely the same purpose. The airfields in Cyprus are totally irrelevant to the question of Enosis. The airfields are there because the Cypriots, in common with other Western Europeans, think it right and proper that they should make their contribution towards our common defence.

Mr. Grossman: The Cypriots are not Western Europeans.

Mr. Nicolson: I appreciate the hon. Member's point. I deliberately referred to the Cypriots as Europeans. This brings me to my next point. The Cypriots are hurt because they feel that they are subject to precisely the same form of colonial rule as East or West Africans.

Mr. Crossman: Far worse.

Mr. Nicolson: I do not want to be too long. It is because the Cypriots are subject to the Colonial Office in London and have as their administrators reasonable and efficient British officials who may have come straight from Africa, Singapore or some other remote Colony, that they feel it to be an indignity to a people who are of European race, are educated, are Greeks if one likes, and have proved that they can hold their own in business, administration, education and any other field of life with Western Europeans. They consider it an indignity that they should be put under the same form of rule as those whom we are accustomed to call the backward nations of the world.
What we should try to do is to create within our British Commonwealth some form of status intermediate between that

of a Dominion and that of a Colony. We have no word for such a status. Yet we have Colonies in many parts of the globe which are on the verge of becoming half-Dominions. Nigeria is one, the Gold Coast is another, and Cyprus could be a third. The Mediterranean is littered with islands not one of which is an independent country.

Mr. Paget: Has the hon. Gentleman observed that Malta wants to become a county? Unfortunately, Cyprus does not.

Mr. Nicolson: Malta would be another example of the type of Colony I have in mind, and that is why I want to put this proposition to my right hon. Friend. Could we not in some way devise this intermediate stage, which would not be a humiliating status, but would not confer that full self-government in the sense in which Australia or New Zealand possess it, which carries with it the right to secede from the Commonwealth?
I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that, in the present state of unease in the world, we cannot allow the loss of this vital base, surrounded by people not necessarily hostile, but to whom we must continue to make every possible new form of approach in the hope of finding a solution, and to whom we can offer a status in the Commonwealth which, in the course of the years, if not at once, they will find a practical and acceptable alternative to the Enosis which they now demand.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. John Strachey: I, too, would like to approach this matter from the defence side in general, but, first, I should like to say a few words on the Commonwealth issue following the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson).
It seems to me that the only simple thing to say about this matter is this. Are we trying to run a world-wide Commonwealth on a voluntary principle or on a compulsory principle? That is surely the issue of principle, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to do him justice, has been applying the voluntary principle—the principle that membership of the British Commonwealth is a voluntary act—all over the world.
The right hon. Gentleman has been doing just what the hon. Member for


East Bournemouth and Christchurch asked for—finding intermediate stages of development for different parts of the British Commonwealth all over the world. He has done it in the Sudan and he has done it in West Africa, following the ground work laid by the previous Administration, and—again to do him justice, he has continued very well indeed—it has just been done in Singapore. I think we were all moved—certainly, I was—to see a new Parliament in yet one more area of the British Commonwealth.
The question we are asking quite simply in this debate is this: what possible reason can the right hon. Gentleman give before the world for refusing to do that in the case of Cyprus? The hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch enormously underestimated the complaint of the Cypriots when he said that they felt that they were highly developed and civilised Greeks, but that they are not given a higher status than the less developed West Africans. The trouble is that, at present, they are not given nearly so high a status.

Mr. Nicolson: Because they have refused it.

Mr. Strachey: No; I will come to that in a minute.
Why is it that we do not do what we have done in West Africa, in Singapore, or what we have done in the Sudan to an even greater extent? Why is it we do not do that? I can think of no reason why we do not allow a democratically elected assembly to meet in Cyprus, except that we know that if we did there would be a majority in favour of Enosis. That is it, and let us face that fact. [Interruption.] Perhaps there would not be; perhaps this is a misjudgment on the part of the Government, but that is the only possible reason why they do not do it. That is the real cause of the deadlock over the Constitution and do not let us pretend that it is not.
We shall really make ourselves ridiculous before the world if, having given independence to India, to the 400 million people in India, Ceylon and Pakistan, having carried out under successive Governments the most liberal policy in the history of any Empire in the world, we refuse to do it in the case of Cyprus today. We are really spoiling what is a

magnificent and wonderful record of this country simply because, apparently, we cannot face the fact—if it is a fact—that, rightly or wrongly, the Cypriots want to be united with Greece instead of being united with us.
That is surely the simple issue, and, with great respect, all the rest of the speech of the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch was pure special pleading, when these are the simple issues that face us. That is why, surely, the Minister's statement was disappointing. I agree, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), that his speech registered some progress. I think that the best thing we can say of it is that it was not quite clear. His earlier statements were perfectly clear. He said that he had never considered the question of a change of sovereignty. This statement was not as clear, and in that respect in was an improvement.
Unfortunately, he went on to make a rather clear statement, in which he said he had not considered and could not consider the issue during this period of world tension. That, I am afraid, may be interpreted—appropriately in a matter of this kind—as putting it off to the Greek Kalends. Nevertheless, it does leave a loophole for the Government to say that world tension is reduced and that they can now be reasonable on this issue. Let us hope that the Colonial Secretary will go a little further in this matter; otherwise, we must face the fact that any normal progress towards self-government and self-determination in Cyprus, such as we are making everywhere else in the whole of the British Commonwealth, is blocked. It is blocked until and unless we admit the right of the Cypriot people to decide whether they want to be Greeks or not, and until we face that, the deadlock cannot but continue.
I wish to say a word or two about the Turkish minority, because that question brings in the important questions of N.A.T.O. and defence. Of course, the Turkish minority is a very important and a very awkward fact: but we cannot allow a minority of 18 per cent. in the island to dictate its will to the rest of the population. What we have got—and, again, let us face it—what is growing up in Cyprus, is precisely an Ulster.
Are we going to use that Ulster as, unfortunately, successive British Governments have used Ulster in Ireland, as an excuse, and a very formidable excuse, for doing nothing, and for perpetuating our own rule?
We could do that, but if we do I think we shall do terrible damage precisely to the N.A.T.O. alliance which hon. Members opposite have very rightly said is so much concerned in this. If we encourage the Turks in the island to be totally intransigent, and if we encourage the Turkish Government to take up an entirely intransigent attitude, then we may get an irreconcilable conflict between two vitally important N.A.T.O. allies—the Greek and Turkish Governments—and do terrible damage to the whole interests of our defensive system in that area.
After all, there is a real safeguard for the Turkish minority even if self-determination in Cyprus did lead to Enosis. Surely, when one is there and looks into the question and talks to Turks, as my hon. Friends and I certainly did when we visited the island, we find one answer to Turkish fears—and they are real fears—of what will happen if they become a minority under Greek sovereignty. If they have this fear, there is one, as I think complete, safeguard, in that there is a very large Greek minority in Turkey. Therefore, no Greek Government, even if it wished, could maltreat the Turks in Cyprus because there are many more hostages to fortune in the shape of Greek minorities in Turkey. For that reason, I really cannot believe that the Turks' fears are well-founded.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat underestimated the Turkish case. The Turkish case is not so much fear of persecution of minorities. The Turkish case is that if there is to be any question of a change in sovereignty, the Turkish territorial claim is better than the Greek one.
Mr. Srrachey: That is a very interesting view. I must say that I find myself utterly out of sympathy with that Turkish claim, if that is the Turkish claim. That is simply a re-assertion of the old claims of the Ottoman Empire to rule Greece and that part of the Middle East—a claim which this country, from the days of Lord Byron onwards, challenged with the utmost force. I could not sympathise at

all with any Turkish claim on those lines, but I could and do sympathise with the fears of those 18 per cent. of Turks who live in Cyprus that Greek rule might be unjust. I think for the practical and, if you will, cynical reason which I have given, that the fact that there is a large Greek minority in Turkey, is a really practical safeguard against that.
There is another point that I should like to take up with the hon. Member for Windsor. He quoted those broadcasts from Athens, and very extravagant and foolish they were. But does he not see that those broadcasts, with their extravagant accusations against Britain, emanating from one of our N.A.T.O. allies show precisely the damage we are doing to N.A.T.O. today by refusing to tackle this question? Wherever hon. Members like to put the blame, by letting this present situation drag on enormous damage is being done to the N.A.T.O. alliance.
The hon. Member for Windsor says that we must do nothing in case we upset N.A.T.O., but it is by doing nothing that N.A.T.O. is being profoundly upset, and a vital link in N.A.T.O.—the Greek Government—alienated. I join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East in their pleas to the Colonial Secretary that he will tell us today that he will enter into negotiations with both the Greeks and the Turks on this issue of the future of Cyprus.
The really vital defence interests of this country are bound up with the N.A.T.O. alliance, and the question of the unity of the N.A.T.O. alliance is much more important than the question of bases on Cyprus. That is being endangered by our pig-headed refusal even to consider the discussion of the future sovereignty of Cyprus.
As the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said, we deplore, as everybody must, the fact that terrorism has begun in Cyprus. But those of us who visited Cyprus last year found everywhere in British circles this argument being used, "This is all a paper agitation. There is no need for us to do anything about it. The Cypriots are terribly over-civilised people. They will never do anything violent or drastic. They do not really mean all this agitation about Enosis. Why, they have not even killed anyone yet. They have not even let off a bomb." I


heard that sort of argument everywhere in official circles. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) was there at the same time and he heard those arguments.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not recollect them.

Mr. Strachey: We discussed them together. I remember very well discussing them with the noble Lord. I heard them in the highest quarters. At the time it seemed to me a very sad argument to use.
Now, within a few months, that argument is no longer valid, and already we have heard the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs turning to the converse argument that because terrorism had begun nothing could be done. Surely neither of those two arguments are valid. We must face the situation that both before terrorism was used and after, the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of Cypriots wish to live under Greek sovereignty. If it is suggested that they do not, let us test the matter with a plebiscite or a general election. I do not like plebiscites, but there could be a general election to an assembly which would have the right to determine the future sovereignty of the island.
I wish to say a word on the issue of bases. As we know, we can have bases on Cyprus for the asking, whatever happens to the sovereignty. The question whether they are valuable or not seems to me today to be a very doubtful one. I thought they were valuable when I was at the War Office. I helped to establish one of them, the base at Dekalia. I think it is a good base. I visited it just as it was being completed, and I think it is a good place at which to station a British brigade. There is no reason in the world why we should not continue to station a British brigade there. We have been invited by the Greek Government, by the Cypriot Nationalist Party and, indeed, by the overwhelming majority of the Cypriots to do so. We shall station it in conditions of amity once we have met their demand for self-determination.
I am much more doubtful about the Episkope headquarters. If we are to spend £8 million building that vast headquarters, I think it is a waste of money.
But even if it is decided to do that, there is no reason why we should not have a base there. The one defence reason which is advanced, "Experience shows that we must not have a defence base or a headquarters on foreign territory." There is a short and simple answer to that argument. If we are not to have bases on foreign territory, why are we spending millions of pounds building bases at Antwerp? What are we doing allowing money to be spent on our behalf at München Gladbach, in Germany? Our whole defence policy consists of these bases on foreign territory. It is quite preposterous to say that we cannot do this in the case of Cyprus.
The case for meeting the Cypriots and negotiating on this issue with our good allies, the Greeks and the Turks, is overwhelming. The real reason why the Government will not do it is, I think, a sentimental one. We accuse the Cypriots of being sentimental and of putting their Nationalist sentiments and emotions before their economic interests. Perhaps they do, but we are putting our sentiments and our nationalist emotions before our common sense and our reason in this matter,
Quite frankly, I think it is because the Government cannot face the pang of seeing sovereignty pass—of seeing the Union Jack pulled down in that area. I can sympathise with those feelings, but, surely, we should try to look at the matter rationally and in an adult fashion, and see what is so obviously to the good of the Cypriots, to our own good, and, above all, to the good of the N.A.T.O. alliance.

6.20 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey), for the reasons that he gave. He actually followed me in to Nicosia airport last September. On our arrival there we spent a few days seeing much the same things and hearing much the same opinions. That being so, I am all the more astonished to find the right hon. Gentleman so determined in his view as expressed today.
I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman when he was talking about whether or not the people of Cyprus wanted Enosis, and about the view which he heard in the official world that they did not want it,


because, otherwise, they would be more violent about getting it. I certainly heard the view from the official world that they did not want it, and I personally experienced that same feeling in going round the island from north to south and from east to west. But I heard nobody in the official world say that the people of Cyprus did not want it because they were not fighting to get it. That would be an incitement to violence, and no respectable member of the Administration or of the business world of Cyprus would go as far as that.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West, the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) were ail in agreement on the question of bases in Cyprus. For my part, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) that this is not really a question of a base looked at in atomic terms. If we apply the atomic argument, then Aldershot is just as valid as Cyprus, and Malta is just as valid as Suez. For the purpose of this discussion we can eliminate the atomic weapon.
Neither is Cyprus a base in the sense that the Suez Canal was a base, in that it does not have very large stores of vehicles and guns, if, indeed, any at all. It consists of a communications headquarters and a command base—admittedly, very large—on one part of the island, and, in another part, facilities for a brigade group which can travel by air or sea to some corner of the Middle East where there may be trouble. For that purpose, I think that the bases are admirable, and I would not oppose their being there.
Whether bases are established on home soil, colonial soil or foreign soil also seems to me to be quite irrelevant to the argument. I agree with the right hon. Member for Dundee, West that we are, in fact, establishing bases on foreign soil and shall continue to do so. The issue of whether there should be Enosis for Cyprus turns on quite other considerations than bases, atomic or otherwise, and of the alleged desire of the Cypriot people.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton was quite definite about this. He said that the majority of

Cypriots wanted it, and he shouted out the words with such complete conviction that I wondered how he had obtained his information. Certainly, if one goes to Cyprus and goes into some village up north, one will find Enosis and various other expressions in Greek chalked upon the walls and roads. If one visits the mayor of Nicosia or the Archbishop, one will hear it in envenomed terms, but if one consults people quietly in the shops and streets, and if one talks, as I had the opportunity of doing, to people in the minor ranks ot the administrative service, one will not hear such a violent desire. Yet they are all Cypriots. Of course, one might argue that a very senior civil servant would immediately adopt the exact view of the Governor, but, in the case of junior civil servants, one could quite well expect them quite frankly to express their frame of mind.

Mrs. Jeger: Is it not rather naive of the hon. Gentleman to expect junior civil servants to run down the boss to a visitor who is a Member of this House?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think it extremely naive of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to expect that the demand for Enosis is overwhelmingly true just because they see it chalked up on the walls and in the streets, and because they get it from the Archbishop.
The right hon. Member for Dundee, West and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton were also in agreement about approaching the Greeks and the Turks for a solution of this problem. I cannot see what would arise from that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) said, the Turks are unalterably biassed about any Enosis solution for Cyprus. It does not matter that they are a minority in the island. In this context, the opinion of Turkey is as powerful as that of Greece.
What sort of solution shall we have either in terms of N.A.T.O. or in other terms to this Cyprus problem if it is arrived at as a result of negotiations by the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office with Turkey and Greece? Those countries are already in a minor state of dispute about certain aspects of the Balkan Pact which has only just been concluded, and relations between them are quite sensitive.
Were we to inject into that atmosphere the Cyprus question and demand a solution to it different from that which prevails today, what will be the result as regards the relations between those two countries? If we damaged those relations, it might upset the Balkan Pact even further, and it could not possibly be of any value to the N.A.T.O. situation in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Paget: I would suggest two things to the noble Lord. What we get out of this, quite apart from anything else, is time. As soon as we start to negotiate, we cease to be the immovable object which can be diverted only by violence. Once we negotiate, we cease, to some extent, to be the object of violence, and, as far as the Greeks and the Turks are concerned, if we are there to try to mediate between them, it is much better for their relations than that they should steadily deteriorate as they have done over this unfortunate Enosis issue.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am coming to the question of what Her Majesty's Government might do to abate or avoid the threat of violence in Cyprus along constitutional lines and in our own context. But I do not think that it is any solution either to the question of violence or to the long-term future of the island to inject it into the atmosphere of the Balkan Pact and the relations between Greece and Turkey.
There are two other matters I wish to mention. The hon. Member for Coventry, East said that there was no half-way house towards a settlement of the constitutional problem in Cyprus, and that, even if we arrived at one, it would be no good because it would inevitably lead straight to Enosis. I believe that to be an entirely false concept of the possibilities of development in the island. Although I should like the constitutional step taken I do not believe that it will result in an increase in the desire of the people of Cyprus to move towards Enosis. So far as one satisfies the instincts towards self-government of a nation, whether it is a nation under British rule or under other rule, the people will develop and consolidate for themselves their own beliefs and hopes for the future, and will tend

to part company with nations which today may lay claim to them but which, in the circumstances at that time, will cease to lay a claim which is so attractive.
I conceive it to be quite possible that although Cyprus may desire Enosis—and here I concede the argument I have just repudiated—it may, with proper constitutional processes applied to it by Her Majesty's Government, reach a situation where it veers from Enosis and desires to develop towards self-Government under our flag and Crown. One of the ways in which I think Enosis can be most easily overcome is for Her Majesty's Government to take a step towards that half-way house in the constitution, to inject a little confidence, hope and determination into the Cypriots in order to get them to veer from Greece towards which country they are now alleged to be moving.
My only other comment concerns a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West. He said that progress was deadlocked until the issue of Enosis is solved; that he would like to have an immediate General Election in the atmosphere of today, thinking—perhaps hoping—that it would result in an overwhelming desire to return to Greece. Then he implied that that would release the deadlock to progress and that Cyprus could be free to take a further advance.
What advance? Having voted for Enosis, an alliance with Greece, that is the end of it—we depart, we get out, we move. That must be the result of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I want very much to know whether that is the final line of the Labour Party. I understood from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) that at Scarborough the Labour Party took the stance that they wished to see self-determination exercised as soon as possible by the people of Cyprus, but if we have this immediate election for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking, and if that shows a desire for union with Greece, the Cypriots leave the British Empire and become a part, a province, of Greece.
Is that the Labour Party view? If so, can we be told before our own General Election, here and now—this evening—that that party desires to lose a British Colony to Greece forthwith?

Mr. Strachey: The noble Lord has challenged me to make my position clear. It is simply this: that sooner rather than later we must allow the people of Cyprus, at a General Election, to determine their own future. I do not think that I have the slightest right to express hopes or expectations as to whether they will choose to join Greece or to have an independent Cyprus, or what they will choose. It would be nice to think that they would wish to remain within the British Commonwealth. Perhaps they will. The noble Lord thinks that they will. He does not think that they want Enosis. Therefore, why is he baulking at their having the General Election? If he thinks that slogans chalked on houses are the only signs in favour of Enosis, what is his objection to a General Election?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman is now temporising with my challenge. In his speech, he was quite clear that he wanted an immediate general election—

Mr. Strachey: Yes.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: —which would declare what the wishes of the people of Cyprus were.

Mr. Strachey: Yes.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He said that he had come from the island absolutely convinced that the people overwhelmingly wanted union with Greece. Therefore, it follows quite logically that the attitude of the Labour Party, as expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, is that Britain, as soon as possible, should lose the Colony to Greece—a foreign country, albeit a friendly one.

Mr. Strachey: Is it the view of the noble Lord and that of the Conservative Party that because there is evidence, firm or not, that the people of Cyprus desire something which we do not desire, we should therefore deny them the elementary rights of self-determination?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I cannot speak for the Conservative Party.

Dr. Morgan: That is an escape.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have no authority to do so.

Dr. Morgan: The hon. Member is entitled to give his opinion.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I will give my own opinion, but before doing so I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speech today. The fact that the Government have no announcement to make now, prior to our General Election, is the correct attitude, not only from the point of view of not making a fresh demarche on this issue at this moment without our having a debate immediately following, but also from the point of view of Cyprus and the troubles that have recently taken place there.
I should like to congratulate him also on introducing into his speech so much valuable information about what is happening now in Cyprus. One of the troubles—and I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, West might agree with me—that I found, and perhaps he found also, was the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the people about what is happening in Cyprus. That is due, certainly, to lack of knowledge, to the feebleness of the radio—I grant that to the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger)—and the lack of really representative and able persons in the island who would express, not only to their own people but to the world the economic, social, agricultural and other advances which are taking place in Cyprus.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor what we are doing to counter the adverse propaganda emanating from Athens, though I am glad that, so far as I understand, that flood is receding, due to Foreign Office representations.
I think that when our General Election is over any Government must take a further step in Cyprus. I should like to see elections taking place fairly soon—as soon as the immediate troubles in the island, due to propaganda, gun running, and all that, have been properly dealt with and put away and police court actions, and so on, have been taken. If there is no recrudescence of these violent actions in Cyprus I should like a formal step to be taken within a matter of months; and I think that elections should be held for a minority legislature; that is to say, a legislature on which the official view prevailed.

Dr. Morgan: How democratic.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: At this stage it cannot be otherwise because, as the hon. Member for Coventry, East has said, the only effective political party in Cyprus is the Communist Party. They cannot be allowed to flood the Constitution, to dominate it and control it at this stage, otherwise there would be another British Guiana situation. Do we want to use our own troops there, now establishing themselves in friendly relations, to put down such an uprising? Not for a moment.
We cannot have a majority legislature at the present time. Nevertheless, I should like to see elections held, knowing that the Communists are the only efficiently organised party and knowing that they would dominate a minority legislature. I do not mind that, because I think it would lead to a feeling in the island on the part of the Nationalists, the Liberals, the Conservatives, the individualists and the business men, whoever they may be in other walks of life, in the island that it is time that they, too, organised themselves on liberal, democratic lines and began to form parties to represent their people and their state of opinion in the island. Then, when they have got formed, an election could be held in which those new parties themselves would feel that they had a part to play. Then, when they had come into the legislature, and after it had been shown that there was really progressive democratic government in the island, we could make a further constitutional advance which would secure them the majority position and the opportunity to work their will about the state of the island.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: At the end of a very long digression the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) got around to answering, more or less, the challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey). So far as I could understand the noble Lord, he made it clear that his answer to the challenge was that he is against self-determination for the people of Cyprus—or, at any rate, that he takes the traditional Tory view that people must be allowed to vote freely only so long as we can be sure in advance that they will vote the way we want them to vote.
A number of speakers from the other side of the House have been completely

unrealistic in their approach to the constitutional problem of Cyprus. Hon. Members opposite have spoken well-meaningly, as did the hon. Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson), of a gradual approach to Dominion status and that kind of thing. The people of Cyprus—or most of them, so far as one can judge—are simply not interested at all in a gradual approach to Dominion status within the Commonwealth, or the framing of a Constitution which would gradually give them a political set-up on the British model. They are simply not interested in that because they are obsessed, rightly or wrongly, by the idea of Enosis, by the idea of immediate—not gradual, but immediate—and complete union with what they regard as their motherland.
Therefore, when the Government offer the people of Cyprus a Constitution, whether it is liberal or illiberal, and tactlessly, to say the least, accompany that offer by a warning that there can be no discussion whatever of a change in sovereignty, the people say, "All right. We are not interested in talking about your Constitution." I would go so far as to say that the only condition on which the Secretary of State will find any responsible or prominent Cypriots willing to talk about the Constitution at all is if he withdraws that unacceptable condition and, instead, makes it quite clear that any Constitution that was brought in would be an interim provisional one and that there would be an agreed time limit, perhaps of three or five years, at the end of which the people of Cyprus would be able to vote freely about their future status. If the Secretary of State could say something like that tonight, the whole atmosphere in Cyprus would be transformed, but I am afraid that it is unlikely that he will be able to do so, for purely party reasons which, of course, we appreciate.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs at least did not query the Greek-ness, the Greek sentiment, the essential Hellenism, of the majority of the Cypriots. The noble Lord was one of those who was sceptical about the reality—or, at any rate, the universality—of the feeling for Enosis. It may be difficult to test this absolutely; as things are, we all have to form our own impressions.
One can meet Greek-speaking Cypriots who say that they are not in favour of


Enosis, that it is simply a political agitation, and so on. I usually find that those Greek Cypriots who have told me that they were not in favour of Enosis were people who had some personal reason for supporting the British connection—for example, the tourist trade or some other trade in which it was very much to their interest that the British connection should continue. Again, senior British civil servants will say, "My secretary"—or "my chauffeur," who is Greek—"assures me that they really do not want to get rid of us at all." That is no more impartial evidence than the evidence of the Archbishop or a Communist mayor, or somebody else who is known to lean the other way.
A lot is said about political agitators, and a great many attacks are made on the Archbishop and on the A.K.E.L. leaders, but in my view both the Archbishop and the A.K.E.L. leaders are perfectly sincere and even, it may be said, altruistic in their agitation for Enosis. Neither of them has anything particular to gain from it. As one of my hon. Friends pointed out, if Enosis were achieved the Communists would certainly be incommoded very much more under the present Greek Government than they are even under what my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) described as the Police State that exists in Cyprus. The Greeks would be very much tougher with them than we are. That, therefore, would seem to be an example of altruism.
Similarly with the Archbishop, against whom so many spiteful things have been said in this country. He is called a political Archbishop—and so he is, of course, for historical reasons, which are not always fully appreciated. Throughout the time of the Ottoman Empire the Church was the spokesman of the Greek people of Cyprus and was officially accepted as such. Therefore, it is a great tradition that the Church in Cyprus should be the spokesman of the people.
But apart from that, why should it be said that the Archbishop is an ambitious, calculating, political prelate? After all, if he succeeds in his propaganda and if there is Enosis, he would no doubt remain Archbishop of the self-governing Church of Cyprus, one of the oldest auto-cephalous churches in the Orthodox world, but he would lose the secular status that he now has as head of the

Ethnarchy, because, presumably, Cyprus would be merged administratively with the Greek mainland. So I cannot see that it is at all fair and just to accuse either the A.K.E.L. leaders or the Archbishop of being self-seeking, ambitious political agitators. On the contrary, I think that they are merely expressing a true emotion which is deeply felt by the Greek majority of the Cypriot people.
There has been a good deal of reference to the Turkish minority and I agree with those who say that minority rights must be safeguarded. I am sometimes in a minority myself in various organisations, and I feel very sensitive about the rights of minorities. But I have never dared to suggest that a minority only 18 per cent. strong should determine the policy of the whole organisation, rather than a majority of more than 80 per cent.
I wonder whether the Secretary of State will deal with this argument when he replies to the debate. If he does, perhaps he would say a word about the particular case—with which he is no doubt familiar—of the Sanjak of Alexandretta, which was ceded to Turkey in 1938 simply because the Turkish population formed 60 per cent. of the whole, much less than the 80 per cent. that the Greeks are in Cyprus. The 40 per cent. minority of the population in the Sanjak, consisting of Arabs, Greeks and Armenians, objected unsuccessfully to this transfer.
Is majority rule applicable only in that case and not in the case of Cyprus? I should have thought that, on that precedent alone, the Greeks had a very strong case for saying that while minority rights of language, culture, and religion must be safeguarded, these must not be allowed to block any constitutional change which seemed desirable to the majority—any more than the rights of, say, the Karens were allowed to block the development of the new Union of Burma.
The noble Lord, at any rate in the early part of his speech, was one of those who were sceptical whether Enosis is really desired. Surely the best way of finding out the truth is by testing it—by holding a plebiscite or making it possible for a General Election to be held. The plebiscite could be under United Nations' auspices. There was a reference to the United Nations in the speech of the hon. Member for East Bournemouth


and Christchurch. He will, of course, realise that this issue was only postponed, and that among the nations which he said were on our side and voted for the resolution was Greece itself, which had raised the matter and had made its position perfectly clear.
The Archbishop of Cyprus may well have been pleased by the result of that debate, because it did at least establish the precedent that Cyprus was not, as the British Government originally argued, a mere matter of domestic concern but a matter of international concern. It is still on the agenda and, as the Greek Prime Minister has indicated, it will be raised again, presumably next autumn.
It becomes urgently necessary, therefore, for Her Majesty's Government to take a more realistic view than has so far been taken. I shall not go into the strategic argument, which, I agree, is to some extent irrelevant, although it is the only argument—whether it is a respectable one or not, I do not know—that the British Government have for insisting on staying. There is no other conceivable argument at all.

Mr. Strachey: A poor thing, but mine own.

Mr. Driberg: After a not altogether unpromising start to his speech, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs deviated into those terrible, smug platitudes about how much we had done for the Cypriot people and how good it was for them that we should stay there, to give them social and economic uplift. There is nothing very much to boast about in the record that the Minister cited. That was normal—perhaps minimal—colonial development. At least the right hon. Gentleman spared us malaria. The one thing that is always said for the British administration in Cyprus is that we have rid the island of malaria, as if that were a tremendous and unique achievement. In the last few years large tracts of the world's surface—in the United States, in the Soviet Union, in many other countries—have been freed from malaria, simply because D.D.T. and other drugs happen to have been invented. That is part of normal progress, and is nothing particularly to boast about.
The Minister did, however, refer in a rather encouraging way to the absurdities of Cyprus Radio. I think he said

that he was confident that under the new director a more sensible policy would be followed. I hope that the Secretary of State can go just a little further than that and can tell us that this debate in which we are now taking part will be reported on Cyprus Radio. After all, it is not a self-governing institution; it has committed these absurdities in the past only under official direction, either from the Governor of Cyprus or from the Colonial Office. The Secretary of State is responsible for it. I hope he will say that a signal is being sent that this debate should be fully and fairly reported, because many people in Cyprus would be very interested in what various hon. Members on both sides of this House have been saying. That is, incidentally, the best and most constructive way to offset Athens Radio and to persuade the people to listen to Cyprus Radio.
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) referred with great indignation to Athens Radio and the terrible propaganda which is being put out on it. One would not expect an objective view of life from Athens Radio, Moscow Radio, The Voice of America, or the B.B.C. Foreign Service. What interested me was that, as so often happens—because none of us is very self-critical, I am afraid: certainly I am not—the hon. Gentleman, in another part of his speech, fell into precisely the sort of offence that he was accusing Athens Radio of indulging in, that is, grotesque and impermissible atrocity propaganda. The hon. Gentleman made the wildest charges of the most general nature against the whole Orthodox Church of Cyprus.
There may have been individual instances such as he cited, in which improper pressure was brought to bear by priests who were enthusiasts for Enosis. It may be that they have refused absolution or baptism or whatever it may be. One has heard similar stories about churches in other countries. I know that when the Archbishop has been tackled about these instances he has always asked for evidence and has done his utmost to follow it up. He would certainly take appropriate action against any priest proved to be guilty of these terrible sins, for that is what they are in a priest. When the hon. Gentleman makes sweeping accusations not merely against a few priests here and there but against the whole Orthodox Church of Cyprus he is


indulging in the same sort of smearing, atrocity propaganda that he complains about on Athens Radio.
I am sorry to have gone on for so long, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak at this late hour. I fervently hope that whatever Government is in power after the Election will take a real step forward in Cyprus. It is quite easy to do: merely remove the implication of that little word "never," which the Minister said he did not use, or did not mean to use, or explained away as soon as he had used it. However, we all know what the implications of it are. We beg the Government to come a little further forward. All that the Labour Party stands for is self-determination. In the present context of the Cyprus problem that probably means Enosis. It is not our business here to argue for or against Enosis, but merely to say that the Cypriot people, like all other peoples in the world, are absolutely entitled, by the Atlantic Charter, the Charter of Human Rights, and everything else in which we profess to believe, to have a say in their own future.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras South (Mrs. L. Jeger) upon opening our debate today in such eloquent terms and putting our discussion on such a high level. The debate has clearly shown the considerable anxiety that exists in the House about the future of Cyprus, and I hope that the Government will study some of the practical suggestions which have been made. I confess that I was profoundly disappointed with the conclusion of the speech by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. It seemed to me to be an extremely unhelpful reply in present conditions, which he himself described as tense, and to a problem which has rapidly become a matter of international concern.
I judge that his reply was that there can be no change of policy and that what we must do is to try to persuade the Cypriots to concentrate on their immediate social and economic problems and hope for the best that sooner or later some degree of self-government may be achieved. But it is just that policy that we have tried in the past. It is a policy that has presented us with our problem

this afternoon and a policy that has broken down. It has broken down because the problem which is before the Cypriots is largely an emotional one, and no degree of appeal to reason can find a proper answer or settle the difficulties which confront them.
It is bad in principle that we should attempt to govern Cyprus when the population is hostile to us, and I think that it can be accepted that it is hostile. All the evidence points that way, excluding, of course, that from the Turkish minority. The plebiscite of the Church and all the evidence from groups and organisations tend to endorse that view. In any case, it is utterly bad for this situation to be allowed to deteriorate until we are now confronted with outrages and demonstrations which clearly indicate what the population is thinking.
It should be obvious to the Government that a way out of these present difficulties must be found. If they continue, they will suggest to the rest of the world that we are engaged in a game of power politics, and we shall bring a great deal of derision on ourselves. The situation damages our name and our prestige as a colonial Power, and for these reasons the Government should adopt a much more constructive approach to the problem.
No Government in Cyprus or anywhere else are likely to exist for long if they are completely divorced from public opinion and, however irrational and emotional that public opinion may be thought by us to be, nevertheless that emotional content and national resurgence must compel us to take notice sooner or later. Incidentally, our military occupation in Cyprus has been carried out without any consultation with the people, profitable as it may prove to be; to them. They have not been invited to give their consent to it, and they remain hostile to us.
The Government tell us that they have made an offer to the Cypriots, that they have offered discussions of a fairly broad Constitution and that at present then-minds are open about the form which that Constitution might take, provided always that there can be no change in respect of sovereignty. We have made such offers from time to time to the Cypriots, but unfortunately, or


fortunately, depending on which way one looks at it, the Cypriots have refused so far to enter into discussions with us of a Constitution which implies their retention in the Commonwealth or under British sovereignty. I agree completely, therefore, with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) when he reminds us that such an invitation to a discussion of a Constitution will prove to be an utterly futile exercise.
The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs announced last July that the Government were prepared to introduce a Constitution on lines somewhat different to that which was proposed in 1948. As to the 1948 proposals, I think that the Minister was right when he pointed out in New York that
This liberal constitution was refused because of the extremists with their appeal to emotion and not to reason and they dared not risk normal evolution, normal constitutional development.
I think that that was reasonably true in the circumstances of the time.
I would also add what the "Manchester Guardian" said in a leading article in 1948, with reference to this Constitution:
These proposals … would have given Cypriot leaders invaluable experience in political responsibility, beyond anything known in the island for centuries and a fine platform from which to make the next step upwards towards autonomy …
But that Constitution, liberal as it was, was completely rejected and, although it could have been discussed at any period since 1948, the Cypriots have never asked that discussions on it should take place.
It seems to me a little unfortunate that the Government should make suggestions about a Constitution a little less liberal than the one which was put forward in 1948. I say that it is less liberal because the proposals which are now put forward leave the elected Cypriots in a minority, whereas the 1948 proposals gave a real power to the Legislative Council. Only four official members were recommended and 22 others were to be freely elected from the Cypriots themselves.
However, in 1948 we could obtain no endorsement for the Constitution which was submitted. It is quite true that that Constitution indicated quite clearly that it must be worked out within the framework of the Commonwealth and could

not imply any change of sovereignty. I shall explain in a few moments why the Labour movement has modified its approach to this problem by insisting and urging that the principle of self-determination should be applied.
It would be short of realistic that the discussions, if they proceed at all, proceeded on the assumption that union, if desired by the Cypriots, must not be conceded. We have tried the proposals of a new Constitution as suggested by the Secretary of State. He said in December, when the uncertainty in relation to the United Nations had been to some extent removed:
I think the situation is much clearer for the get-together of all men and women of good will in Cyprus in order to try to work out a worthwhile Constitution.
He later stated:
The Governor … has let it be known that he would gladly consult the leading personalities of Cyprus, whether Greek or Turkish, about the working out of a constitutional settlement, …
He added:
The Government cannot reopen the question of sovereignty."—[OFFicrAL REPORT, 20th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 2438–39.]
Since that time, in spite of the suggestions made in Cyprus that the Government were now prepared to discuss a Constitution, those discussions have not matured. It may be that since 1948, because of our not making any constitutional suggestions at all, not even attempting to improve the Executive Council, not even attempting to impose, as it were, a Constitution, the situated has deteriorated. The Archbishop's plebiscite has also taken place, and it has tended to confirm the opinion held that nothing less than union with Greece was discussible with the Cypriots. The whole situation has now deteriorated.
A discussion on a Constitution cannot be organised or arranged because the people themselves are not prepared to take any part in it, nor are their representatives. The Church is quite determined that any discussions shall not succeed if such are attempted. Likewise the municipalities, the mayors, the trade unionists and the Communists are agreed on the issue, likewise the Governor and local officials have completely failed to rally moderate opinion to their side to arrange that these constitutional discussions should go forward.
Have the Government a policy for getting out of the present deadlock? An emphatic negative on this major issue is not going to get us very far, whether the negative is expressed in this House or at the United Nations. I would only add that there is no half-way house in dealing with this matter. An hon. Member suggested that we might consider better forms of local government, that we might reform the Executive Council, that we might press ahead with development policy, or that we might institute a form of dual citizenship. I submit there is no half-way house. Nothing short of union is likely to be entertained by the Cypriots.
I do not suggest that in exploring this possibility we should yield to violence and clamour, but we may be obliged to in the long run. Unless we are prepared to make vital concessions, we may find ourselves holding down the Cypriots by violence and repression. We must accept the fact that relations between Greece and Cyprus have generally throughout the ages been cordial and friendly. There is a cultural and religious relationship, exaggerated though it may be by emotional propaganda and a longstanding nationalist spirit, which makes the continued imposition of our sovereignty on the Cypriots difficult to justify.
I recall that the previous Secretary of State said that Greece itself was unstable and that it may be rather dangerous to bring the Cypriots into closer relationship with that country. It is certainly true that the Cypriots have nothing to gain economically or in any other way. In fact, they may suffer a great loss if subventions are withdrawn, and it is likely the Cypriots over here will not enjoy altogether the status of foreigners.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that that they will not like the status of foreigners or they will not like it if they have to have it?

Mr. Creech Jones: They will not like it if they have to have it.
Britain has made a very considerable contribution to Cyprus, but even the last publication of the Secretary of State, when referring to the allocations of the

colonial and welfare development funds, indicated afresh our concern about social and economic development in the territory. But I submit that it is no use our complaining about lack of appreciation of the work done by the Administration in Cyprus on roads, forests, cooperative services, health services, social and welfare services, and the prospect of further port development. All these things are important in the life of Cyprus, and administration as a whole has been done very well and has brought great benefit to the Cypriots. I only say that, as in all things political, we cannot expect gratitude for benefits which we have conferred or for money spent.
Therefore, I cannot see that very much progress is likely to come about from these discussions. The real difficulty exists in the mind of our own Government and is about strategic needs. It is the strategic argument, as I see it, which alone prevents justice being done to the Cypriot people in terms of their own political rights. The Foreign Office, the Colonial Office and the Chiefs of Staff apparently regard Cyprus today as indispensable in our defence arrangements.
The withdrawal from Suez, Palestine and North Africa would appear to make Cyprus of some importance in the Eastern Mediterranean. Certainly it is more important than seemed possible only a few years ago, but I want to ask whether political change is to be determined by military strategy alone, and that the strategy of another Power.
I should like to suggest that, in view of the deadlock, if there is no way out of the constitutional problem because the strategic arguments appear strong to our Chiefs of Staff, the Cypriots' political development and rights in terms of sovereignty and their relationship with another Power are of greater importance than the strategic considerations which have been stressed in these discussions.
I say that because I believe there is another way round the strategic argument which has not been faced frankly by the Government. I would suggest, therefore, that there should be soundings for talks with the Greek and Turkish Governments, and that these soundings should be taken without further delay. In this respect I commend the suggestions made by my


hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman). I feel that we cannot alter the present situation from the point of view of the Cypriots without bringing both those Governments into consultation, and I would also add that we need to retain the good will of the Moslem population in Turkey and in the Near and Middle East.
The Turkish Government have an interest because of history, and in any case their population must be safeguarded in any change that is brought about. They are our Allies, and they are concerned with Eastern Mediterranean security. I think it would be possible to indicate to the Greek Government that we are prepared to endorse the principle of self-determination by the Cypriot people and that they themselves should determine what their ultimate sovereignty should be.
If that suggestion is made, there are certain conditions which must be attached. The first is that the people should proceed to co-operate in establishing a self-governing Constitution which would not be merely representative but would proceed to full responsibility. The second is that within a limited period a plebiscite should be taken on whether the people wish to remain in the Commonwealth or to change their severeignty. The third is that the people of the island co-operate in establishing the requirements of defence so that the bases are retained and developed by tenancy arrangements by treaty, as happened in the case of Ceylon and also in the case of Transjordan. I submit that some arrangement might be made along those lines.
I agree that we cannot walk out of Cyprus immediately. We cannot throw lightly on one side our responsibility to minorities for defence and external relations, nor can we abruptly withdraw from our social and economic works and cause development to stop, or withdraw financial aid and so throw away what has been done already. I submit also that in any case there is a defence problem which all concerned with freedom and the future of social democracy cannot ignore.
When I say that the Cypriots and the Greek Government should be prepared to discuss with us some arrangement in

regard to the retention of bases, I would point out to the House that for many years this has been an active thought, not only in Greece, but in Cyprus itself. We all recollect that the King of Greece, in 1948, was moved to indicate that his Government were prepared to concede military facilities of the kind which he thought we should seek. Those ideas are fairly common among those who have been advocating union with Greece.
We are ourselves, as an Imperial Power, familiar with some such arrangements in strategic areas in various parts of the world. Therefore, provided there are ample safeguards in regard to minorities and in regard to the use of these bases, I cannot see that objections should be lodged against our plea that the people of Cyprus themselves should elect as to the form that their association with an Imperial Power should take.
The situation is easier, largely because Greece and Turkey are now within the N.A.T.O. defence system. I should think that if such discussions were possible with the Turkish and Greek Governments, the Church would remove its hostility and a different spirit could be created among the Cypriots. I am sure that along the lines of mere negation we shall find ourselves in holding down the Cypriots and engaged in resort to violence.
Some of us have spent happy days in this beautiful and historic island and have many charming friends among the Cypriots, both Greek and Turkish. The Cypriots are an ancient, civilised people. They are interested in political discussion if they are not practised in political responsibility. They demand to establish an old association and we cannot eternally block the way without betraying our own political beliefs.
The line which I suggest affords a period in which the Cypriots, with Britain, can fashion a form of government suitable to their needs, their ideas, their temperament, and their economic background—a brief time in which to learn the art of responsible government before determining their ultimate destiny. I believe, too, that we can satisfy our strategic requirements, for these seem the only grounds for keeping this troubled island in Imperial fetters, however light such fetters may be at present, but which the majority of the people are anxious


to snap. I ask the Government, therefore, to take the initiative in satisfying Cypriot aspirations.

7.27 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I would not say that the eve of the rising of Parliament, least of all the eve of the rising of Parliament for a General Election, was the best possible occasion to discuss an issue of this magnitude. In some parts of the House I think it is a little difficult to apply an absolutely disinterested mind to the problem with which we are confronted. However, it provides us with an opportunity, each from our point of view, of stating the case as we see it. It also gives me, as Colonial Secretary, an opportunity of meeting some charges, of removing some misunderstandings, and of answering some misstatements.
May I say at the start that I have nothing very exciting or dramatic to say. It may be better to say that now and not leave the House to realise it when I have finished my speech.

Mr. Crossman: That is no great surprise.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: At least I can state the case, as I see it, for the policy that is being patiently pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said that he much wished that when the then Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, now my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Defence, had spoken at the United Nations, he had dealt more with the substance of the issue. I was most interested in the thoughtful speech made by my hon. Friend but, on reflection, he will recollect that at U.N.O. it fell to my right hon. anl learned Friend to conform with the strict rules prevailing at the particular stage of the discussion, and to deal only with procedure and not with the substance of the case. Considering how much of the substance appeared in his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend was singularly successful in getting round some of the difficulties of keeping in order.
This debate was opened by the hon. Lady the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) in what was a restrained, well-argued and attractive speech, if I may say so without any

appearance of patronage. The hon. Lady will not think me unduly curious, I hope, when I tell her that I turned to my reference books and found that she represents a constituency in which there are 3,500 Cypriots, of whom 2,000 appear to vote at General Elections. The hon. Lady's majority is 1,900, not a very comfortable position. It is actually about a dozen more than my majority in Mid-Bedfordshire.

Mr. Crossman: But the right hon. Gentleman has no Cypriots in his constituency.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have a few, but not very many.
I think the hon. Lady will agree with me, and so will the House, that, however strong her own feelings may be—and I know that she is very interested in Cyprus from every other point of view as well—to meet the emotional desires of a large part of her constituency, I have other considerations that I must also bear in mind when I approach a problem of this magnitude.
I do not join those who believe that material conditions are the only things which make people anxious to be under one sovereignty or another. I would certainly never argue that there is not a great deal of importance to be attached to being associated with a country from which one's culture springs. None the less, the hon. Lady is a fair-minded person, and I hope she will take steps to include in her Election Address in Holborn and St. Pancras in the course of the next few days one or two other facts which might not be altogether so welcome to her Cypriot constituents if, in fact, Enosis were conceded and if, in fact, the Cyprus population in England, instead of being subjects of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies, became foreign subjects.
I will not deal with all the problems about alien regulation, entry permits and limited occupations. I will just limit it to this. They would, of course, lose their British passports—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—if they were not British subjects.

Mr. Crossman: Ireland.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There are certain historical reasons relating to the old United Kingdom which we could not


apply all round the world. They would lose the right to vote, but I hope it would not stop the hon. Lady making interesting speeches about Cyprus in future. Also, those between 21 and 50 would become liable for recall to Greece for National Service.
The hon. Lady's speech was a very moderate one, and it was a good start to the debate. I thank her very much for the tone in which she couched it. I cannot say altogether the same about some of the speeches which followed, although on the eve of the rising of Parliament I do not want to be unnecessarily partisan.
I cannot agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that a state of almost civil war exists in Cyprus. Nor could I agree with some of the very wild statements with which the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) started his speech, although undoubtedly he ended it in a much more moderate tone.

Mr. Paget: I certainly did not say that a state of civil war existed now. I said that all the symptoms of it were there if we went on in the way we are doing now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry if I did not properly understand the hon. and learned Member.
The hon. Member for Coventry, East made a number of very dramatic observations. Just to show how dangerous this sort of debate can be at a time when people are collecting short and snappy points to bring out against each other at a Genera] Election, let me take the question of the hospital at Dhekelia, to which he referred. He called it a £3 million hospital. It was begun in the third quarter of 1954, and it is to cost not £3 million but £1· 013 million, and it will provide accommodation for Service personnel and their families. The hon. Gentleman, in making the charge that all that money had gone to this one hospital, contrived to give the impression that really good facilities are not available for the Cypriots living permanently in Cyprus.

Mr. Crossman: I am sorry about the figure; I was incorrectly informed. I said that the hospital would be exclusively for British Service personnel. Is that true or untrue? There was no other implication in what I said. I stated it as a fact.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Hon. Members who were in the House at the time will know that the impression conveyed was that here was an immense sum of money being spent upon one building which was solely for British purposes. It is a military hospital in the usual sense of the term, and there is a host of facilities for the people of Cyprus in hospitals in other parts of the island.
I will not go in detail, as the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) asked me not to, into the question of malaria, but we are entitled to say that the death rate is 7 per 1,000, one of the lowest in the world, the infant mortality rate is very low, and the increase in population is about 10,000 annually. Other excellent proofs of really good social and health progress are to be found in the Annual Report, and I think that these are sufficient answer to those who, just hearing that we are spending £1 million upon a British hospital, might feel that we had neglected these responsibilities.
The hon. Gentleman also said that Cyprus was a police State and ruled by foreigners. The faces of some of his own colleagues took on a slight look of surprise when he made that observation. If there is the beginning of a police State, it is in the difficulty which a large number of people find in expressing views which may not be altogether popular to powerful influences in their own country. The inability of a large part of a population, who are not so vocal, to say what they really feel because of the fear of the consequences is, I agree, one of the symptoms of a police State, but the suggestion that the British authorities have imposed a police State is quite ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman said that they were ruled by foreigners. There are at least 7,000 Cypriots in Government service in Cyprus. The hon. Gentleman said that they had no opportunity to run their own affairs. There are a large number of local organisations in Cyprus, and we are straining every nerve to get the Cypriots to take part in a constitution wherein they will be able to run their own internal affairs.
On the point of the sort of subjects which would be discussed in relation to any new constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood) said he hoped that the Government would do something to break the deadlock and


would reconsider the progress and the various steps whereby the Cypriots could be brought by stages to a greater management of their own internal affairs. I am very anxious to break the deadlock. I am not afraid of breaking it in an unusual or unorthodox way; not in the very least. The first step to break any deadlock is to get people to come along who can with complete conviction and truth say that they represent the people who send them to the central assembly. Let us get the elected representatives of the people of Cyprus together, and then we shall have those in Cyprus to whom we can talk about the problems that confront them in the modern world.
The only other speech from the Opposition side of the House to which I should like to refer was that by the hon. Member for Maldon. It was—we are all sorry to hear it—probably his last speech in the House of Commons. The hon. Member, in his concluding observations, showed that he has not lost his sting. There can be no more fitting occasion to make his final speech than in a debate which, I understand, he said in last Sunday's "Reynold's News," was inspired by the Labour Party Conference at Scarborough last year. Now that he will have a great deal more free time we may have to expect "Reynold's News" coming out every day instead of only once a week and other contingencies of that sort. However, we have been hardened to accept all sorts of difficulties, and that one can no doubt be taken in our stride.
Perhaps the most remarkable speech of all was that by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). He is, of course, in some difficulty. When he was Secretary of State he was asked, on 12th March, 1947, what his views were about an interview with a delegation from Cyprus. He said:
I reminded the delegation of my statement in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) … to the effect that no change in the status of the island is contemplated by His Majesty's Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1947; Vol. 434, c. 1318.]
The right hon. Gentleman has used as an illustration of the justice of his change of mind the fact that the plebiscite had shown how strongly the people felt, but even after the plebiscite his right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for

Colonial Affairs, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), said:
It has been repeatedly made clear that no change in the sovereignty of the island is contemplated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1950; Vol. 476, c. 1279.]
I cannot believe that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich, as Minister of State for Colonial Affairs at that time, would have made that remark without the authority of the then Secretary of State.
I see the difficulties in which the right hon. Member for Wakefield finds himself. He is anxious to unite all sections of the Socialist Party, particularly at this critical moment. I cannot seriously believe that he came to the Chamber with any peace of mind. When he began his speech, as hon. Members on this side of the House noticed, he started by saying that he intended to tell us what had brought the Labour movement to—he was about to say "change," but he changed his mind half way through and said "modify." I was sitting so near him that I could see the word "change" was about to appear. He said "modify."
I cannot imagine a more major modification than this. The Turks are to be ignored, the Turks who are 40 miles away from Cyprus. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that another Moslem country, Syria, is only 60 miles to the east, while Greece is 500 miles to the west? Turkey is to be ignored, or, anyhow, over-ridden and the people in Cyprus are to be given a chance to unite with Greece. That is a very interesting suggestion, and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question or two about it in a moment.

Mr. Creech Jones: I do not know how the Secretary of State has got the idea that in my speech I was inclined to ignore the existence of the Turkish Government. I deliberately said that one of the first things that was necessary was that there should be discussions or soundings for talks with both the Greek Government and the Turkish Government. I also pointed out that the Turks had a very real interest, which they could quite legitimately press, that in any change which was brought about there should be safeguards for the Turkish population. I also indicated that in these changes it was desirable to bring the Moslem population along with us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All that may well foe so, but the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech clearly was that he had faced up to the fact, whatever the views of the Turks might be, that self-determination for the majority in Cyprus and the majority alone was apparently the policy of the Socialist Party. That was the first time that had appeared in the course of the debate. When my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) challenged the light hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Strachey) on the question of sovereignty—I was out of the Chamber—I gather that the right hon. Gentleman hedged a little. But when the right hon. Member for Wakefield was speaking, he rushed right in. When they were colleagues together in the Government it used to be the right hon. Member for Dundee, West who rushed in and the right hon. Member for Wakefield who went rather slowly and who looked before he leapt.

Mr. Strachey: I do not know whether it is hedging or not, but what I replied to the noble Lord was that I thought that there should be a sovereign assembly in Cyprus which would determine future sovereignty of the island. Is that hedging?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I stick to my point and I say to the right hon. Gentleman that that just shows what years in the wilderness can do. I believe that he has a feeling that he is unlikely to assume responsibility when he makes light-hearted speeches such as we have just heard.
Her Majesty's Government have in Cyprus a number of duties which it is our intention to fulfil; to carry out a strategic responsibility on which, in our belief, our survival, Greece's survival, the survival of Turkey and the N.A.T.O. nations and, indeed, the free world depend; to maintain law and order and promote economic advance; we have the will and the means to do all those things, and we also want orderly constitutional development. For that, of course, we need co-operation and if we are given that co-operation we will pursue that end, I assure the House, with precisely the same vigour as our other aims.
I will not deal with any detail with the broadcasts from Athens, save to say

that such broadcasts are altogether inconsistent with our ties of friendship and alliance. I had intended to say more, but the debate has already continued longer than was planned. As one who, like many colleagues on both sides of the House, has many ties with and great friendship for Greece, I hope that better counsels will prevail. Through the Cyprus Broadcasting Company we are, of course, answering the various charges that are made and putting forward constructive suggestions from our own point of view. I should like to thank the Marconi Company and the B.B.C. for the prompt and dramatic aid they brought to meet the damage caused by the acts of sabotage, which acts of sabotage must be linked in the minds of reasonable people, in part at any rate, with the broadcasts from Athens.
The right hon. Member for Wakefield said that he was anxious all the time to consider the interests of the Turks and I interjected that Turkey is only 40 miles north of Cyprus. In N.A.T.O., to which Greece and Turkey belong, and in the Balkan Pact, to which Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia belong, we have two organisations for the preservation of peace which ought to enable the Greek Government to see the danger to these unions that reckless broadcasting may cause. The broadcasting is exclusively from Athens.

Mr. Crossman: Is there no Turkish broadcasting?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not of the kind that could be held to incite anybody to sedition or violence.
I fear that I must detain the House a little longer, because I have one or two definite statements to make which ought to be on the record, dealing in part with the strategic importance of Cyprus as Her Majesty's Government see it. There have been a number of very interesting speeches by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this subject, but the Government have great responsibilities in this matter and the best possible advice and no one would quarrel with the right of a responsible Minister in a debate of this kind—even though the defence aspect is not my Departmental responsibility—to make one or two general observations.
The importance of Cyprus depends on the importance of the Middle East as a


whole in our world-wide strategy. I do not think that this can be denied. The Middle East is the land bridge between Europe, Asia and Africa, the centre of the Moslem world and the keystone of our defence against Communist infiltration into Africa and an essential link in our chain of strategic and military bases. It is essential that a power vacuum should not be allowed to build up on the southern flank of Turkey. The defence of this area in war is vital in order that this flank should not be turned. It is interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor reminded the House, to note that in 1878 the Sultan of Turkey leased Cyprus to Her Majesty's Government. This was done to assist collective defence against Russia.
The United Kingdom has a particular concern and responsibility in the Middle East for a number of reasons. Historically, we are the one major Power with special responsibility for the stability and general strategic interest of the area. We have undertaken specific treaty obligations to Iraq, Jordan and Libya to go to their aid if attacked. To us, the Middle East is a vital link in our Commonwealth air communications and we have also long-established economic interests in that area.
To discharge our responsibilities, to promote stability and cohesion in the Middle East and to defend it in war, we must be able to station sufficient forces there and we must have secure bases from which they can operate. Cyprus has many advantages from that point of view. It lies athwart the sea routes through the Mediterranean, it is becoming an increasingly important link in our air routes and it is the only remaining British territory in the Middle East.
It is, therefore, the only place where we can provide permanently, with freedom from externally imposed restrictions on our military requirements, a peacetime location for our Middle East land and air headquarters, where we can keep troops permanently to meet sudden emergencies of any kind. Geographically, it is very well placed for this purpose and airfield facilities will be of first importance. These are inescapable facts in the modern world, the world of tension in which we live today. It is no service to the free nations of the world—least of all for reasons that may not be wholly

connected with the issue which we are debating today—lightly to suggest that these things should be forgotten, or to argue as though they do not exist.
There has been a good deal of discussion about sovereignty. I reminded the House of what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield on the issue of sovereignty, only a few years ago.

Mr. Crossman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the question of defence, may I ask him a question? He has talked a great deal about British strategy. Did he deliberately omit any reference at all to N.A.T.O. in his description of the strategic significance of Cyprus? He was asked whether our planning would not be assisted if the Greeks and the Turks shared the base with us.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If only the hon. Gentleman can restrain his impatience he will find that I am coming to that, because it arises in connection with sovereignty. The fact that he did not realise that shows that he does not grasp the importance of sovereignty from the defence point of view.
We have certain obligations as a member of N.A.T.O. We are very glad and determined to fulfil them. Other countries have their obligations, too, but Great Britain's responsibilities extend far beyond those which we share in common with Greece or Turkey as members of N.A.T.O. They include a number of other things. They include our treaty obligations with the Middle Eastern States to which I have referred which are our treaty obligations, not N.A.T.O. or Greek obligations but United Kingdom obligations. Also, we have commitments on a world-wide scale which Greece does, not share.
Of course we could discharge our N.A.T.O. commitments in some other way, no doubt, but we cannot discharge these wider commitments unless we are able to station forces in Cyprus and to move them in and out freely at a moment's notice as part of the redeployment of our strategic reserves of land and air forces to meet an emergency. Freedom of action of this kind is consistent only with the maintenance of British sovereignty.

Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in July, on the very day on which the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs made his announcement, the present Prime Minister said that it was essential, when we have troops overseas, to have the consent and co-operation of the population among whom they are based, and that that was one reason why we were getting out of Suez?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that anybody would compare Cyprus with the situation in the Canal Zone—I remind the hon. Gentleman of the wealth of friendship in Cyprus—nor could one compare the enormous size of the Suez installations with the far more modest preparations being made in Cyprus, which is one of a number of links in the chain and not the only link as the Suez Canal virtually was before.

Mr. Creech Jones: Before we leave defence, would the Secretary of State say how long it is since all these enormous strategic advantages in respect of Cyprus were discovered by our chiefs of staff? Further, is not it possible to conceive of an arrangement short of sovereignty whereby, by treaty arrangement, all the facilities we require for military bases and the rest could be supplied? Why is not it possible to conceive of some such arrangement as exists in, say, Ceylon or Jordan, where we have bases although sovereignty is not ours?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman will know what advice was given to the Labour Government. I would not attempt to estimate what form it took, but the advice consistently given to us is that Cyprus is of the first importance.
In regard to the way in which a leased base might provide an adequate substitute, I have dealt with the question of sovereignty, and I only add that leases very often have a habit of being terminated and that Governments change. Far less reliance can be placed on any positioning based on these considerations than on plans made on the maintenance of sovereignty.
It is our view, and I am sure that it is the view of a large number of other nations and communities that have not got so many vocal spokesmen in this House, that the maintenance of our forces in Cyprus and the development of

Cyprus as an important base is a stabilising influence in the Middle East and a valuable contribution towards maintaining the security of the free world.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Mr. I. O. Thomas rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will not give way again. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the House during the debate. I have given way several times, and I am not prepared to be interrupted on this point again.

Mr. Thomas: I have been here.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: One or two questions were asked about the growth of nuclear weapons and the effect upon Cyprus. I cannot do better than refer hon. Members on both sides of the House to the Statement on Defence, which was published recently, in which it is made perfectly clear that, while we are determined to take every possible step in regard to nuclear war, it is not part of our policy to abandon resistance to Communist imperialism in the cold war, and that we have to take a number of other important steps to secure that aim.
Finally, I have made a further appeal to the people of Cyprus to co-operate in a Constitution which will enable us to find the people with whom we can talk sanely and sensibly about Cypriot problems. It is not, and never has been, the policy of Her Majesty's Government to de-Hellenise Cyprus any more than it is to destroy the pride of the Turks in Turkey. We fully realise the cherished cultural and religious ties of the Greek and Turkish speaking community, but we see no reason at all why this tradition should prevent the people from taking their part, in a spirit of friendly co-operation, in a process of constitutional development which is characteristic of all parts of the Commonwealth.
I hope that hon. Members will read the leading article in "The Times" today which uses these words:
There is no reason why the Greek or Turkish communities in Cyprus should feel that, by making a joint constitutional step forward, they are being asked to surrender any of their racial or religious loyalties. Whatever happens they will have to work out a way of living in peace with each other—and with their neighbours.
I am aware that I have left unanswered a number of points that have been made. I hope that we shall have an early opportunity of returning to a consideration of


this most important problem. I recognise the strong feelings that this issue has aroused, but I ask hon. Members to reflect very carefully on the problem as it will be when the General Election is over and on the long-term issues for which we shall be responsible, whichever party may win the Election—for which Parliament as a whole will be responsible.
In October, I said:
The question has been asked, what is to be the ultimate goal of constitutional progress in Cyprus?
and I answered—and I think I cannot better it if I repeat it now:
Before an answer can be given the Cypriot people must join with us in taking the first steps towards managing their own affairs… In the present troubled state of the world we cannot foresee a time when a relinquishment of our sovereignty over Cyprus would be compatible with our responsibilities in the Middle East.
Then I added that I had no intention of prophesying where they might lead, and said:
I am not prepared to look into the distant future when we still cannot see clearly the outcome of our fresh steps towards constitutional advance."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1954; Vol. 531, c. 2146–7.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMPLOYMENT)

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the serious situation in Northern Ireland resulting from the large-scale unemployment there. This problem is causing grave anxiety to the workers. It is a matter of great concern to the industrialists and even to those who are in employment because of the feeling of considerable insecurity which exists. These anxieties will continue unless it be found possible to reduce the substantial figure of unemployed, not by mere expediency, but on the basis of a sound, constructive and practical code which can secure full employment for the people of Northern Ireland.
When there is large-scale unemployment in any part of the territories for which we are responsible, or have some responsibility, it is important that the attention of this House should be focussed upon it. Therefore, although we are in the last hours of this Parliament, it seems

to me that it would be very wrong were we to disperse without having had a debate on this subject.
It was in July last year that I first interested myself particularly in the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I did so mainly because of the appeal sent to us, as a political party, by members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party, who felt that they were knocking at a door which could never be opened in their endeavours to persuade their own Government and the Government of this country to take some effective action on the matter.
Subsequently, with two of my colleagues, I paid a visit to Northern Ireland. We spent five active days there, meeting industrialists, trade unionists, and vital workers, in shops, factories and dockyards, and trying to gain as much information as we could with a view to proposing some practical method of alleviating the situation. We produced some ideas which I forwarded to the Home Secretary towards the end of last year.
I do not wish to indulge in recriminations about the reasons for the unemployment. That would not gain us anything. What is important is that we should face this problem and see whether, in the time at our disposal this evening, we can arrive at a method of ameliorating the problem. It is not my intention, therefore, to lay the blame here or there, either on the Government of Northern Ireland or on Her Majesty's present Government. I do not think that this is an occasion on which we should just enjoy a vigorous political debate and score political debating points. We must examine this problem, and make an effort, first to alleviate it, and, finally, to clear it away.
What are the facts about unemployment in Northern Ireland? It always has been a difficult matter. Even during the war years, when one would have thought it was impossible to have unemployment anywhere, there was substantial unemployment in Northern Ireland in proportion to the working population. In recent post-war years the unemployment figure has never been anything like as low as in the rest of the United Kingdom. It has risen as high as 60,000 and dropped, at its lowest, to about 28,000. The latest


figures, up to 18th April, show unemployment as 36,000, representing 7·7 per cent. of the working population.
If in this country we had 7·7 per cent. of the working population unemployed, it would mean an unemployment figure of 1½ million. There would be debate after debate, day after day, in this House, and Governments would fall unless they were able to produce some method of reducing the figure. As I believe the United Kingdom Government have a responsibility—for reasons which I will state in a few moments—it seems to me we must recognise that we cannot possibly allow a situation in which there is this high percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland without doing all we can to mitigate it.
When one breaks down the figures what does one find? There are 8,000 general labourers out of work; 3,000 textile workers, 2,500 farm workers, 2,300 builders and 1,400 engineers, in round figures, who are unemployed. There is no doubt that those figures would be considerably greater but for the fact that the insecurity felt in Northern Ireland has caused a large number of the inhabitants to emigrate. My information is that since 1951 about 20,000 have gone to Canada alone.
Emigration is a very good thing, particularly for a country like ours: it is good that there should be a constant flow of people to the Commonwealth countries. It is a bad thing, however, when one part of the Commonwealth has to subscribe such a very large proportion of its population, representing in the main its most skilled people—the very people upon whom depends the provision of employment for others. When one considers the emigration figure, coupled with the unemployment figure, one begins to realise, and is able to assess, the gravity of the unemployment situation in Northern Ireland.
The number of industries making the biggest contribution to employment is not large. The Belfast shipyards are capable of employing 18,000 to 20,000 men. At present the labour force is about 16,000. Despite the fact that the programme is fairly full, it does not comprise the kind of shipping which provides employment for the finishing trades. Belfast needs passenger liners so that employment may

be provided for the finishing trade operatives. If passenger liners are not available, alternative employment must be found for these skilled craftsmen.
It appears to me that the aircraft industry is providing employment for more people than could be usefully employed in that industry. The labour force is at present about 8,000 and it would appear that only 5,000 can be fully employed. Alternative work must, therefore, be found for 3,000 skilled engineering workers, or alternatively, sufficient work must be found to employ the whole 8,000.
In the textile trade, 53 per cent. of the production is in linen, and there is no doubt that the two recent tax concessions will be of great value to the linen industry. But I still regard those concessions as an expedient. It is something which should have been done and will prove helpful but it does not represent a long-term solution to the problems of the linen industry.
I know that Lord Brookeborough, the Prime Minister, spent four months in Australia and New Zealand—presumably at the taxpayers' expense—and said that he was helping to sell Ulster linen. His efforts were remarkably successful, because the result has been that Australia has imposed a substantial import restriction which will probably cost the linen industry £250,000 a year. It does not seem to me to be the right way to sell Irish linen—by sending the Prime Minister round to do so. People should be sent who know how to sell their wares.
While it may be very useful, as a good will mission, for the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to spend four months in Australia and New Zealand—and no doubt he spent a pleasant time—it would have been better had he spent four months investigating industry in Northern Ireland, meeting the people whom we met during the five days we spent there, realising and assessing the problem, and taking vigorous steps to deal with it.
I think that a solution to the problem must be found by action along two lines. There must be a short-term programme to make an immediate inroad into the problem of unemployment. Secondly, there must go along with it a long-term programme, based on the indigenous products of Ireland in such a way that there will be permanent and full employment


in accordance with the natural facilities of Northern Ireland.
The fears and anxieties of Members of the Northern Ireland Government have been expressed many times. Mr. W. W. B. Topping, the Government Chief Whip, is reported as having said:
In spite of all our Government has done and is still doing, it is obvious that some drastic and dramatic action is necessary if a solution is to be found to Ulster's unemployment problem.
I suggest that the problems which we put forward to the Home Secretary, and which I shall elaborate tonight, are, in fact "drastic and dramatic." I believe that if they were adopted they would certainly provide the solution by which unemployment in Northern Ireland could be permanently reduced, and by which security could return and anxieties disappear.
I do not believe that the Northern Ireland Government are competent to deal with the problem, and I use the word "competent" in its best sense. What I mean is that they cannot do the job on their own. I do not believe that they have all the necessary facilities for doing it. Therefore, it is essential that the United Kingdom Government should cooperate with the Northern Ireland Government if there is to be anything like a programme which is both drastic and dramatic and which will, in fact, cure this deep-seated problem.
First, something extraordinary must be done in order to make an inroad into the large numbers of unemployed while the long-term programme is getting under way. I believe that the Government ought to look again at the White Paper, issued by the Coalition Government during the war, dealing with the question of full employment. In that White Paper, to which all parties subscribed, it was clearly the intention that we should utilise public spending, and that we should inject public money into the economy when a situation similar to that in Northern Ireland at the present time was reached, the object being to pick up the slack by the expenditure of public money until the normal commercial position returns and unemployment is once more evened out.
Therefore, I believe that, without delay, there should be a large expansion of public works, slum clearance, the building of houses, hospitals and schools, road works, the repair of port facilities, and projects of that kind. These are all very

necessary things upon which it is not wasteful to spend public money. Indeed, a great deal of public money will be spent over the next 20 years on precisely those things.
What is now required is to spend far more money than would normally be the case in order to pick up the large number of people who could immediately be employed on such work. If public works could be so speeded up by special expenditure—and here the United Kingdom Government must face their responsibility, if they want to deal with the matter—and if we could pick up those 8,000 general labourers and place them in work, then immediately the spending power and the ancillary work that goes with this sort of public work would begin to take up a good many people in other trades and professions.
In my opinion, it is only by the expenditure of a considerable sum of money now that we shall overcome the problem. It really means hastening the public works programme, a scheme which, I repeat, was contained in the White Paper on Full Employment issued by the Coalition Government during the war. It is nothing new, and nothing which hon. Gentlemen opposite or their predecessors have not accepted. There is no reason at all why work which must inevitably be done in Northern Ireland should not be speeded up or why the amount of money to be spent in that way should not be doubled, trebled or quadrupled in order to make some quick inroad into this alarming state of affairs.
If we were having to deal with the problem of a million, 1½ million or 2 million unemployed, it would be a tremendous task, but, in this case, all that we are asked to do is to find jobs for about 20,000 to 25,000 people. Of course, with people changing their occupation and factors of that sort we shall probably always find an unemployment figure of 5,000 or 7,000 in the working population of Northern Ireland. One could easily find employment for 20,000 or 25,000 people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is not a big task, and that is why I say that the public works programme, if speeded up, and with the necessary money available, could make a tremendous inroad into the present position.
In our proposals, we mentioned that one of the big factors which would help


considerably would be the provision of a large new dry dock. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) will probably develop that matter later on if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Again, that is something which is required, and something that would be beneficial. I repeat again that it is a question of speeding up a programme, and I believe that if that were done we should take the edge off the unemployment right away.
However, that is not, of course, the whole question, and it would be quite wrong to lead any body of people to believe that we can maintain full employment for all time by merely pumping public money into schemes of this kind. We really must get on to a sound basis. What, then, is the long-term solution of the problem?
I have been looking at the Trade and Navigation Report for 1954, and at the meat and meat preparation imports into this country. The figures are really astounding. In 1954, we imported £256 million worth of meat and meat preparations from countries both inside and outside the Commonwealth. Of that amount, over £33½ million was spent with the Argentine. I just cannot understand why it is not possible so to revitalise agriculture in Northern Ireland as to provide a proportion of the vast quantity of meat and meat preparations which year after year we in this country buy.
In Northern Ireland, there are about 2,500 farm workers out of work. Anyone who has visited Northern Ireland cannot but be impressed by those beautiful acres, land so capable of producing beef. There is a very good market in this country for chilled beef of fine quality. What is required? There is required a considerable amount of money to bring farms up to date. There is required, and there must be, some guarantees about purchasing for a minimum period of five years.
There is not the slightest doubt that the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland could be tremendously stimulated, and that, on that country's doorstep, there is an enormous market for products which she could quite easily provide. If the beef industry and the chilled meat industry were developed by the building

of proper plants a tremendous number of ancillary industries would also be developed. From an examination of the returns, one finds that we spent over £20 million on leather and leather manufactures. Is it not possible, by establishing a chilled beef industry, to develop tanneries, glue factories and other ancillary industries? It would be possible to mop up the bulk of the unemployed if a vigorous programme based on those lines alone were developed.
We buy those goods, and we shall go on buying them, and it seems inconceivable to me that it is possible for people who live thousands of miles away to rear cattle and send beef into this country, to the tune of £33¾ million in one year when, a few hours' sailing time away from us, there is a land which could easily provide the same high-quality product, but in respect of which nothing is done, although, at the same time, 2,500 farm workers are idle.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: The right hon. Gentleman has compared Northern Ireland with the Argentine. I think he will agree that conditions in the two countries could hardly be more different. The farms of Northern Ireland are, unfortunately, terribly small, and although beef production is already very large it does not readily lend itself to very small farms, as the turnover is very slow.

Mr. Robens: With great respect, it is that attitude which kills the whole situation in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government say the same sort of thing. The hon. Member gives up and says, "We cannot do it; our farms are too small." Apparently he has never heard of the development of co-operative farming, or considered the fact that there are hundreds of acres of land under peat which could be removed and used for firing power stations. The land, after reclamation, could be developed, if the necessary money were spent. There is plenty of opportunity for co-operative efforts, provided that guarantees are sufficient, proper land reclamation is carried out, facilities provided, and the necessary amenities introduced. I am afraid that the hon. Member is looking for excuses. His is the wrong approach to the problem.
I am not comparing Northern Ireland with the Argentine, but I say that several


million pounds could go to Northern Ireland by way of the chilled beef trade. It is criminal that 2,500 farm workers should be out of work when there is plenty of land in Northern Ireland which can be developed if the necessary money is provided and energy is put into the introduction of a practical plan. The hon. Member should try to think of ways of overcoming the difficulties instead of saying that there is no answer to the problem. I am amazed that he should take up the time of the House in order to interrupt me with a statement of that kind.
There are bound to be difficulties in connection with these matters; that is why there should be a new approach. There is a vast amount of land reclamation and co-operative work to be done, and I shall later indicate some of the ways in which it can be done. A chilled meat factory, with ancillary factories dealing with fertilisers, bone meal and glue, would help a great deal. It is criminal that the lovely land of Ulster should not be developed to the greatest extent and prosperity brought to its wonderful countryside.
I do not accept the view that merely because the farms are small nothing can be done. Denmark has shown the world what can be done in small and difficult areas, and I am sure that the same could be done in Northern Ireland through the energy, enterprise, vigour and capacity for hard work of its people—great characteristics with which they will face their difficulties, provided that they are given a lead which—in the words of Mr. Topping—is drastic and dramatic.
Such a system would bring about an enormous improvement in the employment position and the prosperity of Northern Ireland. Prosperity begets prosperity. Once an inroad is made into the unemployment problem it is surprising how quickly the situation improves. The problem begins to melt away. A start must be made somewhere, and in a fairly dramatic and bold way.
There is room for something to be done in relation to the textile industry. There is a necessity for a textile development council. Selling textiles is going to be very difficult, whether they be Lancashire textiles or Irish linen. We shall need all our skill, knowledge, ingenuity and sales technique to keep things going. We need a development council to handle market

research, exports, and the modernisation and concentration of the industry. A good deal of cheap capital is also required.
I have already referred to the aircraft industry. Who is going to undertake this tremendous job of co-ordinating the various works that can be started? First, a great amount of public work is required; that is essential for a start, because the other projects will take time to mature. Who will dovetail these enterprises into the economy so that they do not become inflationary or create over-employment, thereby making things more difficult in another way? Who is to deal with the overall future, to examine the Isles Report and other reports made in connection with the Northern Ireland economy? It is essential that all these activities should be dovetailed.
The Northern Ireland Government failed because, when the original Distribution of Industry Act was passed, they decided to opt out of it and act on their own. I believe that that was a grave error. Scotland and Wales have remained in the scheme and have benefited considerably. Many sponsors of factory projects wanted to go into the Development Areas and, because there was a centralised organisation, they could be guided into those areas which offered the very best facilities, and where they could make the greatest contribution to the solution of the unemployment problem.
If Northern Ireland had been in that scheme at the beginning it would have benefited by that first flood of new factory building. That has tailed off, and it is now extremely difficult to get anything like worth-while factory projects to go to Northern Ireland. I think that the Northern Ireland Government "missed the boat" there—but that is their affair. I think that they made a mistake, but there may have been good reasons for it.
That, however, shows that the attack on unemployment must be co-ordinated; we cannot do it piecemeal. Therefore, I believe that, because the Northern Ireland Government cannot do this job on their own, that they must have the United Kingdom Government with them, there should be set up a Northern Ireland development corporation. I would make that a statutory body, representative of the two Governments, of industry, and of the organised workers within industry. I


would give it powers to borrow and to lend money, to set up in business for itself, to enter into partnership with private enterprise industry. I would give it the whole task of co-ordinating all the efforts to deal with unemployment on a permanent basis, so that there could be brought into the country the kind of industry that would guarantee for Northern Ireland and her citizens—with the biggest customer upon her doorstep—full employment.
Such a development corporation could do this task. It cannot be done solely by a Government Department. This method would be part Governmental and part commercial. It would need to be outside the confines of the Civil Service and to employ some of the best people for certain specific things that are required. It would co-ordinate and develop the power programme, the reclamation of the great bogs of which I have spoken, and the chilled meat industry. With the cooperation of the farmers it could do much to assist farming. As I say, it could raise money and lend it cheaply to those people in private enterprise who were prepared to develop their plants and industries.
It would then be possible for the United Kingdom Government to have in that development corporation some of the best economists in this country—perhaps Treasury staff or people like that—with a similar type of people in Northern Ireland. With such a development corporation, working not with the restriction of a Government Department, but with the greater freedom of a public corporation, and provided that, and I repeat words which are not my own, this "dramatic and drastic action" is taken, there is not the slightest reason why there should not be full employment in Northern Ireland.
We presented these views, as I say, to the Home Secretary in November of last year. I know that there have been consultations with Northern Ireland Ministers; nevertheless, nothing has yet materialised. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will tonight carry out the promise, which he gave the House the other day, to answer many of the points which I have raised now and which I have raised privately with him before.
Unemployment is high in Northern Ireland if we take it as a proportion of the working population, but when one looks at the number of jobs to be provided it is not a task which should deter anyone. The problem is soluble. It is possible to achieve full employment; it is not an enormous job. It needs new ideas and new methods. If the Government would accept the idea of a development corporation to do some of the things which I have indicated, then, within a comparatively short time, there would be full employment in Northern Ireland, with the security and happiness that that would bring to its people.

8.33 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I certainly make no kind of complaint about the subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has chosen for discussion tonight. On the contrary, I am glad of the opportunity to deal with some of the points which he has raised. May I say, also, that I make no complaint about the manner in which he has brought this subject forward? I am sure that the whole House will agree that he has done so in a very temperate way and has asked questions which demand answers, and with which I shall now do my best to deal.
I regret to have to say—and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me—that this is not a new problem. We have been very much concerned with it, as indeed any Government would be, ever since we took office. Very shortly after taking office we had very full consultations in London with the Northern Ireland Prime Minister and his colleagues, and close consultation, both at the Ministerial and at the official level, has continued ever since. And—as I know full well—there has been constant pressure upon me from my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland since I have been responsible for this office.
I am not sure that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the Labour Party in Northern Ireland has had no response to appeals for action; and I should like to show what has been done. I entirely agree that the problem is one of both a short-term and a long-term policy, and that it must be looked at in that way. It is not a problem that


is capable of quick solution. Although the position has tended to show some improvement over the past two years, it is still serious.
As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, Northern Ireland has persistently suffered from a greater percentage of unemployment than Great Britain as a whole. During the years 1923 to 1951, the average unemployment rate in Northern Ireland was about 16 per cent. as compared with 9 per cent. in Great Britain. From 1947 to 1951 the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland averaged 6·2 per cent. compared with 1·7 per cent. in Great Britain. When the textile recession came in 1952, the rate in Northern Ireland rose to 10· 5 per cent.; and as the right hon. Member will remember, the unemployment figures rose in the summer to about 60,000.
Since that period, however, when there was that peak of unemployment during the recession, the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland has fallen from 10· 5 per cent. in 1952 to 8 per cent. in 1953 and 7 per cent. in 1954. In 1954, the rate for Great Britain was 1· 5 per cent. These are average figures and they conceal the seasonal fluctuations which take place each year. The difference is as much as from 14,000 to 20,000 between the unemployment peak of the winter and the nadir of the summer. During the winter months the figures rise considerably and it is normally to be expected that they will fall during the summer, when maximum employment is obtainable in agriculture, building and other outdoor occupations.
Despite the picture which is drawn by some people of a deteriorating situation, it should be noted that the figures of unemployment for each of the first four months of this year have been lower than those of the corresponding four months of each of the last three years. I am very glad to say that the number of unemployed in April was a reduction on the number of people unemployed in March, despite the quite substantial laying off of workers owing to aircraft orders being altered. However, I am saying that only to show that it is not a deteriorating situation and not in any way to hide its seriousness.
It is an uphill fight to achieve a reduction in the numbers of unemployed, for the following substantial reasons. Whatever may be said about emigration—I am

not disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman—the fact remains that the working population of Northern Ireland is increasing at the rate of about 2,500 a year. The measure of all the efforts of both Governments is that they have only kept pace with this increase. The prospect for the next five years would be, in the ordinary way, that 12,500 new jobs would have to be found to keep unemployment down to its present level, but the outlook is affected by the fact that the Government of Northern Ireland propose to raise the school-leaving age in 1957. This step is likely to result in the withdrawal of approximately 7,500 young people from the labour market. The net increase in the working population in the next five years may be about 5,000. Even so, the situation gives anxiety and concern to Ministers both of Northern Ireland and of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
While it is true, as the right hon. Gentleman stressed, that responsibility for matters relating to employment in Northern Ireland rests with the Government of Northern Ireland, the economic links between the two countries are such that the United Kingdom Government are closely involved in the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland. United Kingdom Ministers recognise their responsibility to do everything possible to assist the Government of Northern Ireland in dealing with the problem.
May I remind the House of the steps which have been taken both by the Government of Northern Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom to combat the unemployment problem. I do not want it to be thought that nothing has been done. That is far from being the case. The Government of Northern Ireland offer a number of inducements under legislation designed to encourage the development of new and existing industries. These inducements are very generous indeed, and go well beyond anything offered anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of Commerce has power, under the Northern Ireland Industries Development Acts, to make grants or loans to new and expanding undertakings, to assist in the provision of basic services and to hold or acquire factories or sites for lease or sale to manufacturers. Since the war, well over £1 million have


been spent on grants under these Acts and about £350,000 in loans. In addition, more than £5 million have been spent by the Northern Ireland Government on building factories. There is even now a substantial factory-building programme in Northern Ireland, including provision for advance factories, which are not being built in any other part of the United Kingdom. Since 1945, therefore, the Government of Northern Ireland have in one way or another created about 26,000 new jobs.
The inducements offered by the Government of Northern Ireland to encourage industrialists to set up or to expand in Northern Ireland are supplemented by the Board of Trade. This is an important point, because it touches on something to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, centralised knowledge and so forth. The Board of Trade does everything possible, both at headquarters and through its regional offices, to make the attractions of Northern Ireland, as well as those of the Development Areas, known to industrialists in Great Britain who want new quarters.
In Great Britain, any industrial building of more than 5,000 square feet requires an Industrial Development Certificate from the Board of Trade certifying that the development can be carried out consistently with the proper distribution of industry. This requirement of the Town and Country Planning Acts places the Board of Trade in touch with virtually all industries which are expanding and provides an opportunity of ensuring that Northern Ireland is not overlooked as a possible location. The location rooms of the Board of Trade, both at headquarters and at the regional offices, contain information about the economic advantages of Northern Ireland—about labour, sites, and so on—and about the inducements offered by the Northern Ireland Government.
As the House probably knows a handbook which has just been produced by the Board of Trade, called "Room to Expand," contains a special chapter on Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government have also produced a pamphlet which is aimed at encouraging people to come to Northern Ireland. The Board of Trade works in very close cooperation with the Northern Ireland

Ministry of Commerce and the progress made in attracting new firms to Northern Ireland has been encouraging.
During the past year, factories have been established by Dunlop Mills Limited, Fox's Glacier Mints and the Hughes Tool Company of America. In three years since March, 1952, 22 new firms and expansion schemes have been assisted by the Northern Ireland Government under the Industries Development Acts and these now provide employment for over 7,000 people. These figures are expected to increase. Further, about 6,000 jobs are expected to accrue from firms which are not yet in production but which are expected to start shortly.
A particularly promising new development is the construction of a large new factory at Larne for the British Thomson-Houston Company, for the manufacture of electrical equipment, much of which is intended for export. A number of other firms are actively considering establishing themselves in Northern Ireland. Under the Re-equipment of Industry Acts, 1951 and 1953, the Minister of Commerce is further empowered to pay grants of up to one-third of the cost of approved schemes of re-equipment and modernisation undertaken by firms in Northern Ireland between mid-1950 and mid-1957.
Over 400 applications have been received under these Acts, and of these about 240 have been improvements involving grants totalling about £4¼ million. These Acts of 1951 and 1953 have now been replaced by the more comprehensive Capital Grants to Industry Act, 1954. Under that Act the Ministry of Commerce may contribute one-quarter of the net cost of plant, machinery and new building work undertaken by firms in Northern Ireland over a period of three years starting in 1954.
Also, under the Aid to Industry Act, 1953, £750,000 a year is available for payments to industrial undertakings on the basis of their coal consumption, including consumption in the form of gas or electricity. The textile industries have been the main beneficiaries under this Act. As I have already mentioned, with the help of these various arrangements, the Northern Ireland Government have assisted in providing employment for 26,000 people since 1945.
The progress made with industrial development is of fundamental importance in providing a long-term solution to Northern Ireland's unemployment problem. But there is need also for increased expenditure on social investment, particularly on the building of houses, schools and hospitals. In the short run, this will provide additional employment in building, besides indirectly stimulating employment in other industries. In the long run, it will help to make Northern Ireland more attractive to industry, for example by raising standards of education and technical training.
The importance of going ahead as fast as possible in this respect is fully recognised by the Northern Ireland Government. Their investment programme envisages an increase in total expenditure on new building for the social services of from about £17½ million in 1954–55 to over £20 million in 1955–56. The trend of hospital and schools building is now definitely rising. The increase in school building is of particular interest in view of the raising of the school-leaving age as soon as possible to 15. The expenditure on new housing in Northern Ireland has fallen off somewhat during the past few years.

Mr. Charles Pannell: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned the raising of the school-leaving age as soon as possible. Is there any time limit on that?

Major Lloyd-George: Yes, 1957.
Housing has fallen off from the peak it reached in 1952–53, partly because of difficulties about obtaining suitable sites for development in and around Belfast. The Government are considering ways of overcoming this and other obstacles, and they hope to bring about a substantial recovery in the rate of house building in the next two or three years.
In addition to social investment, the Northern Ireland Government are using their investment programme to provide additional employment in a number of ways. The estimates of the Ministry of Commerce envisage an expenditure of £2·6 million on factory building in 1955–56 compared with £1·1 million last year, and there is to be increased work done on roads and harbours. It may be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman if I tell him that the work to be carried

out on Belfast Harbour in 1955–56 is estimated at £2 million, which will enormously increase the efficiency of that port.
Much work is also being carried out on investment in agriculture, drainage and forestry development. Taking new building work of all kinds, including industrial building, this is expected to be about 20 per cent. greater in 1955–56 than in the preceding year. That is an increase that should bring substantial additional employment to the building and constructional trades.
About one-quarter of the population of Northern Ireland is dependent for its living on agriculture, and I do not have to emphasise to this House the importance to the United Kingdom economy as a whole, both in peace and in war, of maintaining a high level of agricultural production in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, although production has increased, the population on the land has been declining steadily for many years. This increased production is largely due to increased mechanisation.
With the decontrol of agricultural marketing, the Northern Ireland Government were, naturally, anxious that producers in Northern Ireland should not have to bear an undue burden as the result of the return of a free market. Accordingly, on 18th February, 1954, my predecessor announced that a financial adjustment would be made between the two Governments for the purpose of assisting the agricultural industry, the amount of the adjustment being subject to annual determination. The calculation of the payment for the first year is nearing completion and an announcement will be made very soon.
Apart altogether from this special grant the House must remember that Northern Ireland farmers receive the benefit of the various agricultural subsidies provided by the United Kingdom Exchequer, notwithstanding the constitutional position of independence which Northern Ireland enjoys in regard to agriculture.
Turning to the manufacturing industries, Northern Ireland enjoys the benefit of the administrative measures designed to help the Development Areas in Great Britain. Thus Northern Ireland firms receive the same preferences in the letting of contracts by competitive tender as the firms in the special areas. The extent to


which Government Departments can place additional orders to Northern Ireland is necessarily limited by the nature of Government requirements and by the need to spend Government moneys as efficiently as possible.
Within these limits, however, the Departments have done everything possible to give Northern Ireland a generous share of what business is going. For example, since the beginning of rearmament, in 1950, the Ministry of Supply has placed orders for £49 million, including £20 million of textiles and £16 million of aircraft. Also on the Admiralty side between 3,500 and 4,000 workers are at present employed by Harland and Wolff on naval new construction, and naval establishments in Northern Ireland employ a further 2,700 civilian workers.
The ability of the Government to place contracts in Northern Ireland is limited by the capacity available. Where it is suitable, as in the case of the textile finishing trade, Northern Ireland receives a very substantial part of the orders going. It is only fair to add that it gains those contracts by competitive merit.
Apart from textiles and the aircraft industry at Short and Harland's, other manufacturing capacity in Northern Ireland is mostly small engineering units. In 1952, a Ministry of Supply team visited Northern Ireland and made a detailed survey. As a result some orders, mostly for ammunition, have been placed.
As the House has already been informed. Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to offset the setback in employment in the aircraft industry due to the suspension of work on the Comet and the cancellation of certain Swift subcontracts. As announced by the Minister of Supply on 16th February, three Bristol Britannias have been ordered from the Bristol Aeroplane Company on the understanding that they will order the production of a total of eight Britannias Mark 250 by Short Brothers and Harland in Belfast, with whom they are associated. The labour force needed to make these eight aeroplanes will build up to about 1,500 within about 18 months.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that an order for a further seven Britannias has now been placed by the Bristol Company. These are in addition

to those I mentioned before. The Minister of Supply has also made arrangements with the English Electric Company to subcontract to Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland the construction of additional Canberra aircraft. This order will help to fill the gap until Britannia production gets fully under way. It will provide work for 200 people by June, working up to about 600 in due course.
Looking further ahead, the outlook for Short and Harland's does not look at all unhopeful. A great deal will, of course, depend on the success of the Britannia aircraft, and from this point of view the recent annual statement by the Chairman of the Bristol Aeroplane Co. is distinctly encouraging.
Another main industry in Northern Ireland which has been going through difficult times is linen. The decision of the Government to remove Purchase Tax entirely from linen cloth and household textiles is a concession which cannot fail to assist the linen industry. Apart from the various specific measures of assistance I have mentioned, a good deal of assistance is given from day to day in the course of, and as a result of, the very close and continuous consultations which take place between the two Governments at both ministerial and official level.
In one way and another, a great deal has been done, and a great deal of anxious thought has been given to these questions over a long period of time. I need hardly say that the Northern Ireland Government and ourselves are always willing to look into suggestions put forward from any quarter for the improvement of the unemployment situation.
As soon as I came into office, proposals were put to me by many of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland and, later, by the right hon. Member for Blyth and some of his hon. Friends. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that they have received very careful attention both by our own people and by the Government and Ministers of Northern Ireland. By no means all the suggestions put forward were new ideas. I am not saying that in criticism; it is a fact that they were not all new. One example that I have in mind is a proposal for a geological and geophysical survey of Northern Ireland.
Such a survey has been operating since 1947, but I am sorry to say that, so far, no indications of the presence of oil or natural gas have been revealed, and only very small deposits of coal have been found. Both deep and shallow borings in the hope of finding coal are continuing, and the economic possibilities of the deposits of obsidian and peat are still being explored. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are interested in what he was saying about peat. I have seen such schemes in practical operation. Later, I will say something which may help in this respect.
Nevertheless, whether the suggestions were old or new, all of them have been examined afresh. I will not go into all the details. They include a proposal for hydro-electric schemes. We know that two schemes have been examined, and that there is fierce objection from the agricultural industry. There is the development of a chilled beef industry. Something has been done about that already, and I believe there is great hope for improvement there. But, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a great deal will depend upon having a very steady flow of livestock to the market, because if there is to be continuity of employment there must be continuity of throughput. At any rate, attention has been given to the proposal and further projects are in course of formation.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to an oil refinery. That is not a great labour user, and I doubt whether the capacity of the United Kingdom development is being utilised. Then there is the question of nuclear energy establishments, which will come in their time, taking the place of natural fuel. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that every one of the items that has been mentioned could be covered by the suggestion that I am going to make.
As I have already explained, the Ministry of Supply and the Admiralty already bear in mind Northern Ireland's unemployment difficulties, but it is inevitable that the levelling off and the changes of emphasis in the defence programme should have their effect in Northern Ireland as, indeed, they have elsewhere. We shall continue to do what we can to help, and I am glad to be able to tell the House that arrangements have just been made by the Admiralty to place "Perseus," an aircraft maintenance

carrier, at Harland and Wolff for refit later this month. This refit is expected to provide work for 500–600 men for 12 months, involving the use of almost all shipyard trades.
I have already at some length dealt with the steps which have been taken and are being taken by both the Northern Ireland Government and ourselves, and have touched on the not unsubstantial results which have been achieved. These measures will certainly be continued and wherever possible intensified.
I now come to the point to which the right hon. Member for Blythe referred, the setting up of a development corporation to encourage, initiate and undertake the establishment of new industries of a permanent character. This matter has received very careful consideration indeed. As a result of that consideration, and in consultation with the Government of Northern Ireland, we have come to the conclusion that a development corporation with executive powers would not be a desirable instrument.
Inevitably, we feel, it would overlap many of the proper functions of the Northern Ireland Government and of the normal business activities of private enterprise. It could do nothing which could not be done by the two Governments, and in an area as small and compact as Northern Ireland there are strong arguments against dividing responsibility and multiplying executive functions.
In the course of the discussions which we have had with the Northern Ireland Ministers we have agreed, however, with the view of the Northern Ireland Government that they should set up without delay an advisory development council, including representatives of both sides of industry from both sides of the Channel, to assist in tackling this stubborn problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland. This council will advise the Government of Northern Ireland on ways of promoting further economic development.

Mr. James Callaghan: When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman says "we have decided," can we take it that the Northern Ireland Government are wholeheartedly in favour of this proposition?

Major Lloyd-George: I thought I made that perfectly clear. They certainly are. I repeat, that in the course of our discussions we have agreed with the


Northern Ireland Government. There is no question about that.
The appointment of this council will not in any way derogate from the general responsibility of the Government of Northern Ireland. It will be for them to carry into effect such recommendations of the advisory council as they may approve.
Her Majesty's Government have promised the Government of Northern Ireland that we shall be ready to support this new venture in whatever way seems most appropriate in the light of the recommendations adopted by Northern Ireland, not excluding, of course, the provision of such supplementary finance as is needed to give effect to these recommendations. The details of this new arrangement are being worked out at present between the two Governments and I hope that a further announcement will be possible in the near future.
There is a vast experience, particularly in the Board of Trade, of the benefits to be derived from this form of organisation. We have been particularly successful in Scotland in encouraging and providing markets, and so forth. All the projects which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and which my hon. Friends have mentioned, will come within the terms of reference of such a body.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember that we established an Industrial Development Council in Wales, in 1932, but did not get any new projects in Pembroke Dock until the war broke out?

Major Lloyd-George: The reason was that there was another Act afterwards. At that time I represented that constituency and did, in fact, get two factories down there.

Mr. Marquand: As the result of the activities of that Council?

Major Lloyd-George: It does not matter how it is done. Nobody can deny that in Scotland a council like this has done a tremendous job. What I am saying, and I think right hon. Gentlemen agree, is that we should make use of all the experience we have in South Wales and elsewhere. After all, all the remedies to which the right hon. Gentleman

referred are already applicable to Northern Ireland and we would all agree that it is a good thing to use every possible method to improve the situation.
As I emphasised at the beginning of my speech the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland is not only serious in degree, but, unfortunately, one of long standing. In spite of the efforts of successive Governments, no complete solution has been found, but I know that we are all anxious to make matters better if we possibly can. In conclusion, I should like to assure the House, and especially those hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give all the assistance that lies within their power towards finding a solution of this very serious problem.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Though I represent a Leeds constituency, I make no apology for intervening now to discuss the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland, because in another capacity I have some responsibility for the engineering trade, and especially for the trade unionists employed in it. To me and to my union a fitter or a turner unemployed in Northern Ireland is just as important as a fitter or a turner unemployed in Leeds or London.
It was in that spirit that I went to Northern Ireland last February. I have always recognised that unemployment, to paraphrase the maxim of Litvinov, is, like peace, indivisible; that, generally speaking, patches of unemployment in Northern Ireland, patches of unemployment anywhere, are a threat to full employment everywhere. When I went to Northern Ireland, the engineering employers were already talking in terms of reducing wages and lengthening hours, in effect threatening the standard of life of British engineering workers, in order to batten down the general price level and to get contracts and work for Northern Ireland.
That is not what any of us want. We want a stable price level. We want engineers, and working men generally, to be employed at the trade union rate in Northern Ireland, just as they are in any other part of the country. No one could go to Northern Ireland almost as a stranger, as I did, and fail to appreciate


that the question of full employment or unemployment is front page news. When my aircraft touched down at the airport I found the Press waiting for me, and I am only a back bench Member of the Opposition, though I went in my capacity as the Secretary of the Trade Union Group of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
When I got to my hotel the whole of the Press was there. One sensed in this community what I have never seen since the 1930s, the stark fear of unemployment. There can be no question of that. On the day that I visited Belfast, the whole of the shipyard workers had stopped work, not because I went there but as a protest against another 1,600 redundancies at Harland and Wolff Ltd. It was the first time in the history of the Province that the whole of the engineering workers in Belfast stopped work on what was fundamentally a political issue.
Although the Press said that I addressed about 5,000 people, it is a fact that nearer 20,000 had stopped work. They poured in from all parts of the city to protest against unemployment. I am addressing the Treasury Bench on this matter because I want them not to underrate the fear that there is in Northern Ireland. I have known unemployment. I had a year of it during the first three years of my married life. Men who have gone through the experience of unemployment never get the chill of it out of their bones.
This is a question of the fundamental insecurity of the working class. I felt for these people whom I saw out there; I felt akin to them. It was certainly the biggest meeting I have ever addressed, and there could be no doubt about the stark apprehension. One need only think of the serious position in the necessitous areas in the 1930s to recall all the old terrors. In Northern Ireland one thought of Dunne's time theory and imagined that one had gone back 20 years to the bad old times which one had hoped would never return.
While we sit here in London glibly talking about unemployment, it is worth bearing in mind that if the unemployment figure in this country were similar to that in Northern Ireland, it would mean that we should have over 2 million unemployed. On my return from

Northern Ireland I put a Question to the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), about this. I said that the loyalty of Ulster, or rather of Northern Ireland, could not be maintained merely by considering Ulster as a bastion in time of war, or on the empty bellies of the workers. We should retain that loyalty by making the people of Northern Ireland feel that they are an integral part of this country, and that it is not some sort of Formosa of the British Isles.
I found in Northern Ireland a sentiment which was expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde)—I hope I do not misinterpret him—in a recent debate. There is a considerable body of opinion in Northern Ireland which holds that their affairs would be far better handled at Westminster. In fairness to hon. Gentlemen opposite, I should say that they did not want Stormont in the first place. But Stormont has been established and has set up its own Civil Service. It has its own vested interests.
Speaking generally, if we take the size of Northern Ireland and compare it against the world canvas, it is a Ruritanian puppet State. Its Government is a ridiculous, glorified county council, trying to deal with the Province's own trading economy in a vast world. When one considers some of the implications of the Treaty one finds that it has resulted in the complete ruination of Londonderry. I do not wish to discuss the political difficulties, but regarding the matter geographically, and from the point of view of modern economics, one finds a shocking state of affairs.
It so happens that today I talked to Mr. H. Lord, one of our trade union organisers, who has been making an investigation in Northern Ireland. He told me that there were 2,400 people unemployed in Londonderry. That may not seem a large figure to us, but is it not breathtaking when we realise that it represents 18 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the employable male population of Londonderry? Does not that fact make Londonderry the kind of "black spot" which we knew in the 1930s?
We find all sorts of subsidiary matters springing from unemployment. In Northern Ireland, boys leave school at the


age of 14, and they find difficulty in getting jobs with a future. My friend came across a boy who had accepted a job at £1 a week which had no prospects at all. The effect of the Treaty and unemployment has completely distorted the balance of the sexes. In Londonderry, the population comprises 40 per cent. males and 60 per cent. females. I have no statistics of the relative age groups. I do not know whether the same number of young women and young men emigrate from Northern Ireland. No one would suggest, however, that an ill-balanced population augurs well for the future of Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to go into the problems of the textile industry except to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) made an investigation. He cannot be present tonight.
Many of these matters indicate the reactionary nature of the Northern Ireland Government. For many years engineering apprentices in this country have been released from their ordinary work for a day a week in order to be properly trained, because we need a greater number of technicians. The Government of Northern Ireland have just awakened to that fact. A statement has been issued by the Ministries of Commerce and Education that it is a desirable thing to do. That has been construed by the trade union movement as a somewhat belated statement, and probably nothing more than an Election gamble.
An hon. Member who intervened on the day on which I asked the Prime Minister a Question, complained that the title of No. 1 shipbuilders, which was formerly held by Messrs. Harland and Wolff, had been captured by a Hamburg firm, the reason being that the Germans could give a firm price and a guaranteed delivery date. The hon. Gentleman wanted to know, in the interests of shipbuilding workers in Belfast and elsewhere, whether the Prime Minister would cause inquiries to be made as to why shipbuilding here could not give the same facilities. He asked whether, if necessary, the right hon. Gentleman would give Government backing to enable them to do so.
I was not very encouraged by what we heard from the Home Secretary this evening. He said that a development corporation would overlap the functions of Government in Northern Ireland and that it could do nothing which could not be done by the two Governments themselves. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested an advisory body. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) intervened at that stage because he was very concerned with unemployment in South Wales during former days. I remember that he wrote a book on the subject.
Advisory bodies did not get us anywhere very much with regard to the Development Areas. It seems to me that we are concerned more with the prestige of Governments, both here and in Belfast, than with really getting on with the job. Something far more imaginative than this should be done.
I wonder whether the best way would not be to put one of the atomic reactors there as an indication for all time in the future, and as a symbol, that we are committed towards the maintenance of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this country, and as an investment for the future.
Northern Ireland has no minerals. A geophysical survey has shown that. If we staked our claim with one of the dozen or so atomic reactors which there are to be round the country, that would indicate where the House of Commons stood. Northern Ireland suffers from political as well as industrial considerations. There is a fundamental feeling among her trade unionists, shall I say, in the industrial sense—though more often than not they vote for the party of hon. Gentlemen opposite for political considerations into which I will not now go—that their destiny is better cherished from Westminster than from Stormont. They have a sense of belonging. And I think that some attention should be given to that aspect of the matter.
This development corporation should be run as part of the general economic life of this country. The Six Counties really need some extra consideration because of the undoubted geographical disadvantages from which they suffer. Big factories cannot be erected in them. The question of transit and conveyance enters


into the matter. Apart from shipbuilding, a very big diversion is necessary. Commodities for Government Departments, for the Post Office, and things of that sort, could be produced.
Speaking as an engineer, it seems to me that a good many secondary industries, such as the plastics industry, are wanted there. Northern Ireland has too many heavy industries. She cannot take up the slack of the older workers, the semi-skilled workers, and those kinds of people. I should have thought that there was a future for the plastics industry there.
I want hon. Members to believe that the Amalgamated Engineering Union is concerned with its members in Northern Ireland, because it is an international organisation. It has members, not only in Ireland, but in every part of the Commonwealth. The trade union card I carry allows me to transfer to any part of the Commonwealth.
A great many people from Woolwich Arsenal and Kent went over to Northern Ireland when production of the Comet began there. Those people, who were once my friends and neighbours, are suffering because of unemployment. I plead for larger vision in this matter. We should not regard Northern Ireland merely as a strategic base, or something which is politically desirable. We should not consider Northern Ireland as the "kept woman" of the Tory Party, but as an integral part of the Commonwealth, which has to be nourished and cherished in peace time as in war.

9.25 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel H. M. Hyde: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell) in his criticisms of what the Northern Ireland Government have or have not done, because I should probably be out of order if I did so. I should like to say, however, that I listened with great attention to his speech. He made a number of remarks with which I am certainly in agreement, and I imagine that my colleagues who represent Northern Ireland constituencies also agree with him. He said he hoped that Northern Ireland would not be regarded as the "kept woman" of the Tory Party. We should like to think of her as the "white-headed boy" of the Tory Party.
The hon. Member spoke about unemployment, and having felt it in his bones. We who have lived in Northern Ireland, and have experienced its tragic results, could not agree more. We all feel that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) introduced the debate in a very moderate manner, which we appreciated. Unemployment is not a subject out of which party capital should be made, or a momentary electoral advantage gained.
There are one or two small points in the right hon. Member's speech upon which I should like to say a few words. He referred at the outset to the question of emigration from Northern Ireland, and suggested that the present unemployment figures would be very much higher were it not for the emigration which has been going on. That may or may not be so, but it is also fair to point out—especially as he referred to Canada—that much of that emigration has been going on from Northern Ireland to Canada for over a hundred years, in good times as well as bad. The City of Toronto, for example, is populated largely by those from Belfast and the surrounding countryside.
The right hon. Member also spoke about the non-competence of the Northern Ireland Government to deal with this problem, and with the necessity for assistance to be given by the United Kingdom Government. He referred to the Northern Ireland Government opting out of the opportunity to participate in the benefits of the Distribution of Industry Act, but under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, to which the hon. Member for Leeds, West referred, such matters as labour, employment and industry were made the special concern of the Northern Ireland Government and, constitutionally, there was no question of that Government's opting out; under that Act they could not opt in to such a scheme as that provided for in the Distribution of Industry Act. To appreciate these problems it is necessary that this peculiar constitutional relationship existing between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom should be borne in mind.
We have also heard a very full statement from my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary, in which he has set out the record of the Northern Ireland Government and the assistance


which the United Kingdom Government have given to our province by providing additional work. We appreciate what he has said, and we are grateful to him for his references to the activities of the Northern Ireland Members. We make no apologies for having been a nuisance to him and to his colleagues, particularly to the President of the Board of Trade, to the Minister of Labour and to the Service Ministers. We have badgered them in season and out of season. We may not have received the publicity which right hon. Gentlemen opposite have received. We have worked in perhaps a quieter, but I hope none the less effective, manner to try to play our part in solving this terrible problem.
I do not wish to recapitulate the story—it has already been set out in some detail—but it is only fair to bear in mind that something concrete and considerable has been done. We have heard of the capital grants of about £4½ million which have been made, with £5 million to follow. That is something. We have heard of loans to industry, and of about 50 factories which have been or are being built and which, when in full production, are expected to provide work for about 40,000 people. That is something for which credit should be given where it belongs.
Some might think that the assistance given to us by the United Kingdom Government should have been greater, but it has been quite substantial. We have had our fair share of Government contracts. In fact, it could be argued that we have had more than our fair share, but certainly we have had a good helping of what has been going. As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stated quite recently, contracts to the value of £12 million were allocated to Northern Ireland in the last year.
Mention has been made of the situation in the aircraft industry at Short Brothers and Harland. That industry came to Northern Ireland just before the war and was built up during the war until it employed about 17,000 workers. Then, of course, as with the aircraft industry in other parts of the United Kingdom, it suffered. At the beginning of the lifetime of the present Government in 1951, Short Brothers and Harland were employing about 5,000 workers, but, notwithstand-

ing the setback resulting from the suspension of the production of the Comet, there are now nearly 9,000 workers employed at that firm. With the contracts for the Canberras and the Britannias we hope that not only will those figures be maintained but that there will be work to absorb even more workers. We have had also the contract from the Admiralty for the "Perseus," which should give a great feeling of encouragement in the shipyards.
The right hon. Member for Blyth spoke about shipbuilding and drew a rather gloomy picture, but it was only the other day that the contract for the new 28,000-ton Union Castle passenger liner was allocated to the Belfast yards. That is certainly something which will do a good deal to relieve the redundancies among the fitting and finishing end of shipbuilding which resulted from the completion of the "Southern Cross."

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member would agree, would he not, that while we pay tribute to the initiative of the yard in getting that order, it was against tremendous odds in view of the now severe competition from shipbuilding on the Continent?

Lieut-Colonel Hyde: I quite agree that there is competition from the Continent. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) and myself, not so long ago, visited the shipyards of North Germany at Bremen and Hamburg and we are fully aware of that competition.

Mr. Robens: The hon. and gallant Member said that I was a little gloomy. Is he very optimistic, in view of that intense competition which he found, that orders for a number of passenger ships will be pouring into the Belfast yards?

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: No; but it is something that we have the order for this vessel from the Union Castle line and also from the Elder Dempster line; and other orders are coming along. I do not take perhaps as gloomy a view as does the right hon. Member, although I do appreciate the situation that is caused by what is happening in the North German yards. We should, however, recognise that something has been done. Some of us think that it is not enough, but if it had not been done the unemployment figures would be much higher.
I should like to say a final word on the question of the development corporation, on the one hand, which was proposed by the right hon. Member and the advisory development council, on the other hand. It may well be that in substance there is not a great difference between what has been proposed by the right hon. Member and by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary with the concurrence of the Government of Northern Ireland.
I hope that there will be representatives of both labour and management, from the textile industry, agriculture and engineering, on both sides of the Irish Sea, as well as experts serving on the council. We should take encouragement from what has been done in this direction by the Scottish Council for Development and Industry which has a number of striking achievements to its credit and which has an energetic chairman of its executive committee in the person of Lord Bilsland. I hope that in the chairman of the advisory development council we will have, not a figurehead, but a real live wire with energy, initiative and drive, who can make the new council a real success.
It must be our constant hope and prayer in Northern Ireland that, with the establishment of this council, a new era will begin in the industrial history of Ulster. Good will and co-operation are necessary from all parties; and if this debate is productive of anything the greatest good it could do would be to foster good will and a determination to put aside purely party and selfish considerations in order to work together to overcome the terrible problem of unemployment in Ulster.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. C. W. Armstrong: I want to deal briefly with one point in the textile unemployment problem in my constituency where, after agriculture, linen is the biggest industry. It happens that the speciality of that industry in the county is the making of linen handkerchiefs.
The abolition of Purchase Tax on piece goods, sheets, towels and other household textiles, has been of great help to that part of the industry, but for Purchase Tax purposes linen handkerchiefs are classed as garments and not as piece goods. They get no benefit from this abolition. I do not know whether paper handkerchiefs can properly or even

decently be classified as garments, but the Purchase Tax on paper handkerchiefs has been abolished.
The handkerchief may seem a rather trivial part of the linen industry, but, in fact, the manufacture of linen handkerchiefs is about one-quarter of the total linen manufacture in Northern Ireland. Under the Utility Scheme it was possible for linen handkerchiefs to be sold in quite large quantities but under the D Scheme virtually no handkerchiefs can be sold free of Purchase Tax. That has had a very serious effect upon the industry in my constituency.
I make no apology for raising this question, because it represents one of the pockets of unemployment which are extremely difficult to deal with, and which cause much misery in the areas where they occur. For instance, in the two towns of Lurgan and Portadown, which are the main centres of this particular industry, out of 5,652 looms, 2,110, or well over one-third, were idle on 2nd April. This is a higher proportion than in the linen industry generally in the north of Ireland. The abolition of Purchase Tax has failed to help this section of the industry, which needed it most.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has at last agreed to relieve Lancashire, although there is no unemployment problem there because workers who are out of work can find employment quite easily in other industries. In the north of Ireland that is not the case. Those who were thrown out of work by these changes in taxation were, by and large, the skilled men who can make these high-quality articles. There is no alternative employment into which they can be absorbed.
In his statement on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the structure of Purchase Tax would be kept under review from the point of view of high-quality articles which are important to the export trade. The great bulk of the linen manufacture is exported, and 70 per cent. of it is exported to hard currency areas, whereas its raw materials are not purchased with dollar currencies. Therefore, I am encouraged to ask for an immediate review of the position of this trade in linen handkerchiefs, and, with that, I would ask for consideration for articles which are primarily intended


for embroidery. They previously attracted a low rate of tax as unfinished articles of educational and therapeutic value.
Retail traders are notoriously shy of committing themselves to orders for goods which are liable to Purchase Tax, because of the complications of invoicing and still more because of the risk of loss if the Purchase Tax is taken off. Because the Purchase Tax has been taken off other lines of linen goods, that reluctance will now be concentrated on this unfortunate trade in linen handkerchiefs.
I most earnestly ask that the necessary adjustments in Purchase Tax be made to remove the anomalies which I have tried to describe, and I ask that that should be done before retailers stock up for the autumn and Christmas trade. If, for any reason, it is impossible to do that, I ask that the injustice done to this industry when the Utility Scheme was superseded by the D Scheme might be removed by raising the D level for these articles by 100 per cent.

9.46 p.m.

Sir David Campbell: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) has dealt with the main issues which have been raised in this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) has dealt specifically with the linen industry. I must express my gratitude to the Home Secretary for the very clear and comprehensive review which he gave us of the deplorable unemployment position in Northern Ireland, and also for his clear account of the steps which the Northern Ireland Government and our Imperial Government have taken to deal with that problem.
I welcome, and I know that all the people of Northern Ireland will welcome, the announcement which my right hon. and gallant Friend made tonight of the agreement which the Northern Ireland Government and our Cabinet have arrived at on the setting up of an advisory development council. It will form a most useful link between the two Governments, and I trust that it will bring to bear upon the problem, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Belfast, North has said, some of the best brains from the business community's side and from the employees' side to help us deal with it.
The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) made a most useful contribution to the debate on the question of our unemployment. We in Northern Ireland and certainly we Ulster Members on this side of the House welcome any help we can get to deal with this issue. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the short time problem, and there again we agree with him. I may add that the Northern Ireland Government are also concerned, and they are taking steps, as my right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, to increase very considerably their expenditure on social services during the next five years.
There is one matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to which I take exception. He referred to the visit of our Prime Minister, Lord Brooke-borough, to Australia and New Zealand. He rather sneered at the fact that Lord Brookeborough went out in connection with the development of trade, that the visit was at the expense of the taxpayer, and that instead of visiting Australia he would have done better to spend his time studying the industrial problems of Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman spent five days in Northern Ireland. Lord Brooke-borough has spent a lifetime in its service and is fully aware of its industrial problems. He will continue to serve Ulster and the people there. Although it is most unfortunate that Australia has had to cut its quota of imports, which includes linen, I am sure that when it is in a position to resume importing it will be found that Lord Brookeborough's visit will have borne good fruit. He not only went there on a mission of good will on behalf of our industries but on a mission of good will from loyal Ulster citizens, and in that I know he has done much good.
I should also like to welcome the assurance given that the Imperial Government will come to the assistance financially of the Northern Ireland Government to implement new schemes for dealing with this problem.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: The name of Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland Ltd. has been mentioned very often tonight, and I am very perturbed about the unemployment there because its factory is in my constituency. Since I


raised this matter as long ago as June, 1954, I, together with the other Ulster Members, have done everything in our power to get further work for this factory.
I appreciate that the Minister of Supply has done a great deal for Northern Ireland in getting work for Messrs. Short's, but I should like to raise a point put to me by some of the workers in Messrs. Short's who are here tonight. These workers consider that more could be done, especially in the present circumstances when it is most required.
They have been studying the annual report of the Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited, which is associated with Messrs. Short's, as is the British Government, and I should like to quote one paragraph from that report:
Short Brothers and Harland, Limited—In recent years we have been seriously concerned about the difficulty—through shortage of men—of further expansion in the neighbourhood of Bristol where employment is at an exceptionally high level … even the Sabre repair line, which we undertook for the R.C.A.F. in Europe, has now been subcontracted to Scottish Aviation Limited at Renfrew.
I would like to know on their behalf why this contract for repairing Royal Canadian Air Force Sabre jets could not have been given to Northern Ireland. It cannot be said that they have not the facilities for doing this, as I am informed by these workers that they are working on American Sabre jets and other similar aircraft, and that these Sabre jets are sent by the American Government on aircraft carriers to Short Brothers and Harland in order to save transport costs.
I do not expect the Home Secretary to be able to answer this point, but if I cannot get an answer now from the appropriate Minister, who is the Minister of Supply, I hope that we shall get it on a future occasion.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Phelim O'Neill: I will not detain the House long, but as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) was good enough to mention at considerable length in his speech our greatest industry, namely, agriculture, I would like to say a few words about this matter. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be more at home in the industrial region of Northern Ireland than in, as he rightly described them, our pleasant fields and countryside.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the land of Northern Ireland is probably as intensively cultivated as any land in the United Kingdom. I give as an example the fact that in. Northern Ireland 88 per cent. of the entire cultivable area is farmed, whereas in England and Wales the comparable figure is 79 per cent. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) if I compare the agricultural production in Northern Ireland with that of Wales. In some ways the two areas are fairly similar. Wales has an industrial belt along its south coast but, otherwise, it is largely agricultural. Outside Belfast, Northern Ireland is overwhelmingly agricultural.
It is an interesting fact that recent statistics show that in the 13 counties of Wales there were 238,000 pigs. In the Six Counties of Northern Ireland there were 676,000 pigs. It is an extraordinary fact, but true, that our small area of Six Counties in Northern Ireland produced last year rather over one-sixth of all the pigs produced in the United Kingdom. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that one of our problems in Northern Ireland is the fact that our farms are too small. We are very dependent on the commodities which produce a rapid turnover, which is so necessary for the small farmer, namely, pigs, milk and poultry produce.
Our beef industry is considerable. I agree that it should be expanded as far as possible, but it is difficult to see how it can be greatly expanded when our system is already so intensified, without some reduction in our milk production, and, of course, the monthly cheque is so valuable to the small farmer that he is loath to give it up.
I entirely agree that we should exert all our endeavours to produce the most modern abattoir and refrigeration plant. This is not altogether a simple matter. As my right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, an important factor is a constant flow of cattle throughout the season. That is not easy to achieve on our very small farms. We have tended, though we are trying hard to correct it, to have a very large flush of fat cattle in the autumn period. Until we can level out the flow—and I hope we shall be able to do so—a really large-scale abattoir and


refrigeration plant will take some time to organise.
I am never absolutely confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends are fully seized of the very great difficulties that are being faced by our very small farmers in these days. I was interested to hear from my right hon. and gallant Friend that the implementation of Clause 16 is now being discussed and that an announcement will soon be made. This announcement is awaited with the greatest interest and also with the greatest anxiety by all the farmers in the whole of Northern Ireland. They expect Her Majesty's Government to fulfil the promise which they made over a year ago both in the spirit and in the letter, and I feel that the intentions of Her Majesty's Government towards the problems of Northern Ireland generally will very largely be judged by the generosity with which this implementation is made.
I sincerely trust that the great faith that all our people have put in Her Majesty's Government for so long will be taken into consideration, and that we shall really see not only a square but also a generous deal.

10.3 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: According to those who study the records, this is the first debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland that we have had for many years. Indeed, I am not sure that it is possible to trace the record of when we last had a full-scale debate, except on constitutional issues.

Lieut-Colonel Hyde: Going back less than 12 months, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I introduced the question of Purchase Tax, and it ran for a whole day.

Mr. Callaghan: I fully agree that during Budget debates from time to time—

Lieut.-Colonel Hyde: It was not during a Budget debate.

Mr. Callaghan: —and also during special debates on the textile industry, we have had speeches from hon. Gentlemen representing parts of Northern Ireland about their own individual interests. What I am saying—I do not think it is open to contradiction; at

least, I hope it is not—is that this is the first full-scale debate that we have had for a very long time on Northern Ireland, viewing the economy of that territory as a whole. I take it that that is not challenged.
It ought also to be said that the debate has been held on the initiative of the Opposition, and that the Opposition has set aside time for the affairs of Northern Ireland to be discussed. I regret that this has been necessary. I wish that the Government themselves had found time to discuss these matters, because the whole House would have benefited by a discussion, the Government would certainly have benefited and perhaps there might have been some beneficial result to the people of Northern Ireland. However, the Opposition has provided the time in the last day but one of a dying Parliament. From the atmosphere of the Chamber tonight, it is quite clear that this Parliament ought to be dead and we ought to be away to the hustings to get back again as soon as possible.
It was extremely significant that in the Conservative Party manifesto the only reference to the affairs of Northern Ireland should be on the constitutional question. I do not understand why, in a situation in which all the Ulster Unionists Members support the Government, the only reference we can have in the party programme is to the link with the United Kingdom. We all know how important that is and we all know, as has been said tonight, that that link must be preserved, but there are other problems.
It is to those other problems that we are addressing ourselves and to which I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite would have wanted to address themselves in the appeal they are making. Those of us who visited Northern Ireland for the first time last autumn were shocked by the amount of unemployment there. We were also shocked by the helplessness and hopelessness of those who were suffering that unemployment. I shall not speedily forget meeting a committee of the unemployed in Londonderry and talking with them, meeting the chairman, and seeing his son.
The son was a bright young boy of 18 or 19 years of age. I saw him coming in late one night with his books under his arm. I said, "What job do you do?" He said, "I do not work." I said, "What


is your job?" He said, "I have not worked since I left school. I am studying to be an accountant and when I qualify I hope to leave this country and go to England to work. I have one day a week on the football pools." His father had been out of work for seven years. It may be asked why he did not move. He had five children and if one is living on the dole and one's capital is exhausted and one has not had very good work, it is not easy to uproot oneself and move to another part of the country to establish oneself once again.
It was that sort of person who talked to us with gratitude, because they thought that we were people trying to take an interest and help them in their work. That kindled the continued interest of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and myself and other Members who went over there. That is the problem we want to solve. Whatever else may be said of the Home Secretary's speech tonight, I cannot take the view that he has held out any hope to those young men, or, indeed, to those older men in Northern Ireland, that they are very likely to be back at work earning a decent wage in the near future.
After all, that is the only test, and if a Government cannot pass that test, the Government fail. We ought to know by now how work can be provided. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth said, this is a tiny problem. We are dealing with 30,000 people at most. My right hon. Friend said the figure was less and he is probably right. We may be dealing with only 20,000 to 25,000 people. I say to the Home Secretary that there was nothing in his speech which betrayed any proposed drive by the Government really to get down to this problem and solve it, and we therefore regard his speech as disappointing.
To him the debate must have been reminiscent of debates in the House about the position of South Wales in the 1930s when we had reviews of what was being done. We had descriptions of all the activities that were being undertaken. The debate flowed peacefully on to its close, although not nearly as peacefully as this debate is coming to a conclusion. South Wales Members sometimes used to be much more ferocious than hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in defending the interests of their constituents; but nothing

was done, the men stayed out of work; and that is all we can say is likely to happen as a result of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's very comprehensive review of the situation tonight.
I do not want—and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth does not—to pour any particular obloquy on the travels of Lord Brookeborough to Australia. The people of Northern Ireland will make up their minds themselves whether or not the journey was worth while. I would say to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Sir D. Campbell) that it is really no use sending people like that out there, because the Australians see through them. I have had communications from Australia about such people. They call them "Titled bagmen." That is their description.
They have scorn for such people, because they do not know their job. They go out breathing good will everywhere but quite unable to sell the products or to put across the case that needs to be put across. With all good will to Lord Brookeborough, I would say that it would do Northern Ireland far more good if it would send out there people experienced in textiles who really know their job. That is all that my right hon. Friend wanted to convey, and certainly all I want to say about that matter.
My information agrees with that of the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong) that the abolition of Purchase Tax will not help the linen industry as the Government may have thought that it would, and certainly it will not help that part of the industry which most needs help. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not have more to say about that aspect tonight.
I come to a more general question, and that is whether the situation is relatively deteriorating or not. I am not in a position to say whether it is; I just do not know. The figures that the Home Secretary gave were, I thought, relatively reassuring, but I should like to quote from what Professor Isles said recently in Northern Ireland. He is well known as a professor of economics at Queen's University. He made a broadcast, art economic survey of Northern Ireland, and he said:
While total employment in all industries has been growing at about 4,500 workers a year since the war, it has not been enough to keep pace with the net growth of the labour


force—despite emigration—let alone take up the slack of unemployment, which never fell much more below 20,000 workers even during the war.
That is his opinion. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman takes a more optimistic view.

Major Lloyd-George: I said almost exactly the same.

Mr. Callaghan: That does not seem to me to indicate that the situation is improving.

Major Lloyd-George: I made it perfectly plain, I think, in so many words, that the situation was no better but we were able to keep pace with the extra number coming in. That is true not only of this Government but of their predecessors. That should not be forgotten. The other thing I said was that the situation, while serious, was not deteriorating. The figures for each of the first four months of this year were lower than those for the corresponding months of each of the last three years. The actual position is better, but I still say that it is quite serious.

Mr. Callaghan: I do not want to get at cross purposes with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said that the position was serious and, of course, we all agree. Professor Isles said that the growth of employment has not been able to keep pace with the net growth of the labour force, so that I deduce that he thinks that the situation is deteriorating. That is all. It may be that the position is just being held but, whatever it is, it is not good enough.
I should like to say to the Home Secretary that his review of progress, including the facilities available at the Board of Trade, I thought was very fair. From one small experience that I have had of the way in which the Board of Trade deals with inquiries on this matter, I would say that it is worthy of all commendation, and that it really does try to bring to the notice of industrialists the facilities which are available in Northern Ireland. I can only regret that the Board of Trade has not been able to persuade industrialists to do the job, but I am afraid that the defect in the philosophy of the Ministers in charge of the Board of Trade makes it impossible for it to do its job. That defect was expressed by the Home Secretary—

Mr. F. A. Burden: Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham) rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that a development corporation was undesirable because it would overlap the existing Government functions and the functions of private enterprise. If the Government propose to rely on private enterprise to solve the problem, if the Board of Trade is to have no more than persuasive powers, we may as well say to the unemployed in Northern Ireland, "There is no hope for you," because private enterprise will not solve this problem.
As I understand the position, the Board of Trade has no power of control over a company which wishes to extend its buildings. If an industrialist in London wishes to put up an addition to his factory, he can do so without let or hindrance. That is private enterprise in action and it is what we expect industrialists to do. But we cannot have private enterprise acting in this way, anxious to make a profit, believing that to be the motive power which drives industry along, and at the same time say to this isolated corner of the British Isles, "You are to have the same sort of help. You are to have the same sort of things as the people in London."
I say to the Ulster Unionist Members, "You really ought to be Socialists, because the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland will not be solved until there is conscious purpose of direction of industry in your direction." The people of Northern Ireland understand that, and when the Home Secretary says that the overlap with the normal functions of private enterprise makes a development corporation undesirable, he is being true to his philosophy as a Liberal-Conservative. But he is not able to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We will take the powers necessary to ensure that industries are set up in Northern Ireland."
That is exactly what was done after the war. How did the 500 factories get into South Wales, except through the operation of powers which were used? The iron hand was there with the velvet glove over it. It was used skilfully and with great persuasiveness, but the only way we got 500 factories in South Wales,


and industry at all in South Wales, was because of the residual powers which were there in the background. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth is absolutely right. Northern Ireland missed the bus after the war when they contracted out of the Act—the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) is so anxious to interrupt me that, although Gillingham is a long way from Northern Ireland, I will allow him to do so.

Mr. Burden: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman would read the 1950 Budget speech of the late Sir Stafford Cripps. It is there made clear that although there may be direction of factories, competition is something which Socialism or any other "ism" cannot do anything about. Unless these factories are producing goods of the right quality and at the right price, they will not gain the world markets necessary to keep them going. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the facilities available at the Board of Trade. They should be brought to the notice—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): Order. This interruption appears to be developing into a speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that I wish to prevent him from making any point that he desires on this aspect of the matter, because I think that the contrast in our philosophies should be thrashed out and clearly understood by the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member brings me now to the point I wish to make.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has interpreted Sir Stafford Cripps correctly, and what he said, but I would put this to the Board of Trade. Supposing that the Board of Trade had power today to 6ee that the development of the scientific instrument industry of this country was planned, what objection would there be to establishing part of it in Northern Ireland?
I can see some very good strategic and economic reasons for doing that. What is more, it would have the overwhelming advantage that the scientific instrument industry comprises articles of small bulk and high value. Therefore, the transport cost problem which always afflicts Northern Ireland, and which is always likely to do so, would not be of such significance.
However, the Board of Trade cannot do anything about this. It put itself outside the boundary, and there is no more chance of a scientific instrument industry being set up in Northern Ireland than there is of the hon. Member for Gillingham being returned to this House after the next election.
I wish to say in all earnestness to the Ulster Unionist Members that I hope they are going to be much more ferocious in the future than they have been in the past. One of my correspondents in Northern Ireland said that they were nothing but lap-dogs of the Tory Party. I personally could not say that about hon. Gentlemen with whom I work in amity. In any case, lap-dogs bark and bite, and we have not seen much of either of those attributes from these hon. Gentlemen in the past. They will have to press for Governmental powers in order that action can be taken on issues of this sort if there is to be any solution to the problem. No solution will be found until they do that.
I am delighted that the "Perseus" is going to Northern Ireland. I think that is an excellent arrangement, but it is no more than something that the Civil Lord has conceded, and I have no doubt that he has more than one yard that he would have liked to put it into if he had not been pressed to put it into the Northern Ireland yard.
What Northern Ireland must have is indigenous industries of its own. Of course, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. P. O'Neill) was right in supporting my right hon. Friend in his demand for a chilled beef industry, refrigeration plants and ancillaries that go with an agricultural industry. Those are indigenous industries that one can set up without being left with slop-overs. [An HON. MEMBER: "Short's."] I will come to Short's. What I am going to say about Short's should be faced up to. The firm of Short's is not so much of an asset to Northern Ireland as it should be, and it will never be until it develops a successful plane of its own, and designs and builds it.
Short's lived on Swifts, which were unstable, and the orders for which have been cancelled. It has been living on Canberras, which are obsolescent. It was living on Comets, on whose unfortunate history there is no need to dilate. It is


now living on the Britannia, which is an excellent aircraft. I have flown in one, and I thought it a first-class machine. But none of those planes started in Bristol. In recent years Short's has produced only one plane, the Seamew. Short's sold them to the Navy, but what the Navy are going to do with them I do not know. That is the only indigenous plane produced by Short's.
The hon. Gentleman makes my point completely that Short's must have a first-class design chief and a first-class staff who can design and build a plane. I am delighted that Scotland, which has seen the fruits of so much Socialist activity in the form of a Development Area, should want to join in.

Sir William Darling: Would I be wrong in saying that it was a piece of Socialist planning which moved Short's, which was doing tolerably well, into Northern Ireland?

Mr. Callaghan: Of course it was moved. Does the hon. Gentleman think it should not have been moved?

Sir W. Darling: I was merely asking if it was Socialist planning.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member for Gillingham does not think so.

Mr. Callaghan: I am delighted to see some liveliness creeping into this debate. Of course it was right to move Short Brothers to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Burden: Why did they not get a design team?

Mr. Callaghan: One does not give private enterprise factories design teams. They should create their own—and these people are supposed to be still working under private enterprise.
I hope that the House will forgive me for speaking in my usual rather dogmatic and combative way. It is sometimes worth doing it that way, because it gets some sort of response. I very much regret that the Home Secretary had nothing to say about a dry dock. I understand that the proposal by my right hon. Friend and others who went to Northern Ireland met with favour in that country, and the information now given is that the Minister of Commerce has indicated that he has

also been pressing for it, so I suppose that he has been turned down.
I would remind the Government and the Civil Lord—whom I am delighted to see here—that Britain is short of dry docks. During the last war one of our greatest shortages was of dry docks, and now that ships are being built with broader beams we shall be even more short of them. The great expansion of the tanker fleet makes it even more important that we should have a sufficient number of dry docks. So far as I know, only one or two have been built in this country since the end of the war. One was built on the North-East Coast, but I do not know of another of any significant size, apart from Bailey's at Newport.
There has been a Governmental inquiry into this matter—of which I was at one time the Chairman—and there is upon record the recommendation that we should encourage the expansion of dry dock facilities. It seems that Belfast is eminently suitable for a dry dock of this nature, first, upon strategic grounds, and, second, upon employment grounds. One of the reasons why Harland and Wollf's employees are paid off so regularly is that when the building gets to a certain point all the employees go, because there is no repair work for them to go to. They are engaged purely upon building.
Other yards, particularly those on the North-East Coast, which have both building slips and repair slips, are able to transfer their shipyard workers from one job to another, and I would remind the Civil Lord that he has a very great interest in this matter. The Ulster Unionist Members have an extraordinarily good case upon all kinds of grounds for pressing for a dry dock in Northern Ireland, and I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not make reference to it.
I come finally to the development council which it is proposed to set up. The Northern Ireland Labour Party said that if the Government did not take this step they themselves would do it. I suppose that they are now to be relieved of that obligation, and there will be an official development council. Alas, it will be advisory; alas, it will have no power, and, alas, the Northern Ireland Government will be able to ignore its recommendations if they want to. I think it is a step forward, because it is always a step forward to have somebody prodding,


poking and pushing at Governments and Civil Services, but I cannot regard it—and I do not think that Northern Ireland will regard it—as anything more than a disappointing second best.
What is really needed to tackle this comparatively small problem in Northern Ireland is a development corporation with a high-powered executive, with finance provided by the United Kingdom Government upon favourable financial terms, either by way of loan or grant, and with the power, drive and energy to start a series of new enterprises in Northern Ireland to overcome the neglect of the past. It is no use spreading the matter over a series of Government Departments and expecting that they will do the job. If they could have done the job they would have done it. I am sure that they have tried their best and that they have done all they could, but they have not succeeded.
Unemployment, which was at the level of about 20,000 for many years, soared to about 60,000 in 1952. It has since receded to between 35,000 and 40,000. There it stands, and nothing seems to be able to drive it down. I do not think that the advisory council will put back a single man into a job. I wish I could think that it would.
Although the Home Secretary has been painstaking and courteous in all he has had to say, and comprehensive in his review, all the practical proposals which he has made will meet with intense disappointment in Northern Ireland, and will mean the frustration of a great many hopes which have been built up as a result of the recent Government announcement that he was to make a statement on Government plans. I regret that, because my major objective—whatever may be my minor ones—is to get the men back to work.

10.31p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I think I can fairly say that the tone of the debate on all sides has been one of determination and of moderate optimism. Even the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) could not help letting a gleam of optimism escape when he said that the possibility of the establishment of a scientific instrument factory is as good as the possibility of my hon. Friend the

Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) being returned with a good majority to this House.
He suggested that we might have had an earlier debate on this subject, but I would remind him that this is a matter which can only be dealt with in this way either in Supply or on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, and that it is for the Opposition rather than for the Government to select the time. Indeed, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary was very glad to have this opportunity. I think the House will realise that he was able to show that the Government have this subject very much at heart, and that we are taking definite and strenuous steps to deal with the situation.
I do not really want to add anything to what he said—indeed, I could not do so—but I would say that the various suggestions which have come from both sides will be given very careful consideration. I regret that I cannot say that about the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong). He raised the question of the Purchase Tax on handkerchiefs. The reason why those have not been exempted from the Tax while sheets, for instance, have been, is that, as my right hon. and gallant Friend has said, handkerchiefs fall into the category of clothing, being classified for Purchase Tax purposes in the same group as such articles as ties, collars and scarves.

Sir W. Darling: While not denying that the Department concerned can do as they like in this, why put handkerchiefs in the same category as sheets?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: They are not classified by my Department, but I think that the classification is reasonable.
As the Chancellor explained in the Budget debate, the cost to the Exchequer of exempting clothing from Purchase Tax would be too high for him to be able to contemplate at the present time. It would not be reasonable to make a special exception for handkerchiefs, in spite of what my hon. Friend has said.
On the great majority of linen handkerchiefs, of course, the tax paid is relatively small; it is only a matter of pence. Such handkerchiefs enjoy the advantage of a higher D level than handkerchiefs


made of cotton or rayon, and the tax is payable only on the amount by which the value exceeds the D figure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin) asked why the Bristol Aeroplane Company sent a certain sub-contract to Scotland. I think he was referring to the Sabre jet repair contract. That originated from the Canadian Government, who were able to choose who should do the work; and they chose Scotland. That is the explanation.

Mr. McKibbin: Could it not have been directed to Northern Ireland in view of the present circumstances, when we so much need the employment?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My right hon. and gallant Friend has no power to direct the Canadian Government in what they should do.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East raised the question of a dry dock at Belfast. I must tell him that this is not required strategically and its long-term value would, therefore, depend upon its usefulness for ship repairing. The bulk of naval ship repairing is carried out in the Royal Dockyards. Additional work is shared among all the ship repairing areas and Belfast already obtains its fair share.
As regards merchant ships, there is no reason why local enterprise should not build such a dry dock if, in their opinion, it would be economic. That is the present position.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg the Under-Secretary not to accept that Departmental answer. Strategically, I am sure that it is wrong. Our dry docks are in a most vulnerable area. On the economic aspect, we all know that it is quite impossible for a private man to build a dry dock today.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I said that there is no reason why local enterprise should not build such a dock. As regards the strategic aspect, that is of course a matter of opinion, and I think that the hon. Member would even agree that his opinion may be wrong.

Mr. Callaghan: I know that the Admiralty is wrong.

Mr. Robens: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should be briefed to say that local enterprise should provide it. He surely must know that it would cost a considerable sum of money. It is quite impossible for private enterprise, on its own, to provide a dry dock of that character.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I cannot carry the matter further than that.

Mr. Robens: We have been there and talked to the people on the spot.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I appreciate that the people on the spot want such a dock, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that in itself cannot be the sole criterion and that the other considerations which I have mentioned are formidable and must be borne in mind. Of course, all those concerned will mark what has been said in the House today. Those matters will be duly taken into consideration.

Mr. Robens: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. This is the sort of thing which disappoints the people in Northern Ireland very much. The hon. Gentleman spoke about local interests building a dry dock if they so desired, but he should have made it clear that it was not within the capacity of local industry to provide such a dry dock. What my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said about strategic values is correct. This should be a joint effort. Public money would have to be used, and the dry dock made available at least to the shipbuilding firms for a period of years. The job could be done.

Mr. Callaghan: That recommendation has been made in an official communication.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I cannot carry the matter any further at the moment, as he will appreciate.
These are the only points that call for answer in this debate. The whole House has united in showing a determination to do what we can, so far as our responsibility lies, in helping the people of Northern Ireland in this difficulty. I can certainly give an assurance that my right hon. and gallant Friend has this matter


constantly in mind, and will do all he can to further the scheme which he has laid before the House this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir C. Drewe.]

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock